Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MILITARY MANOEUVRES, 1937 (MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACTS, 1897 AND 1911) (ORDER IN COUNCIL).

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Major Sir George Davies) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that I will make two Orders in Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, drafts of which were presented to your House on the 9th day of February last.

I will comply with your advice.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation Bill [Lords].
Bath Corporation Bill [Lords].
Eastbourne Extension Bill [Lords].
Warrington Corporation Bill [Lords].
Pontypool Gas and Water Bill [Lords].
Woodhall Spa Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill,

originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Whitehaven Harbour [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Mansfield District Traction Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to he read the Third Time.

City of. London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],

East Anglesey Gas Bill [Lords],

Read a Second Time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIRMINGHAM TAME AND REA MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Birmingham Tame and Rea Main Sewerage District," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HALIFAX) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Halifax," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HORNSEA) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the urban district of Hornsea," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

NATIVE RESERVE TRUST FUND.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has yet been informed of the possibility of publishing automatically information with regard to the administration and expendi-


ture of the Natives Reserve Fund of Southern Rhodesia?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I have been in communication with the Government of Southern Rhodesia on this matter. The position is that the accounts of the Native Reserve Trust Fund are at present included in the annual published report of the Auditor-General of Southern Rhodesia, and that an annual report on the administration of the fund in typed form is forwarded to the Dominions Office. The Southern Rhodesia Government do not think it necessary to incur the expense of printing the annual report on administration, but I will arrange for future issues to be placed in the Library of the House.

SEDITION ACT.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Sedition Act in Southern Rhodesia, which is directed against speeches and publications which are calculated to excite hostile feelings against Europeans, contains any provision against speeches and publications calculated to excite such feelings against natives?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. The relevant section of the Act defines a seditious intention as meaning an intention to engender or promote feelings of hostility between the European inhabitants of the Colony on the one hand and any other section of the inhabitants of the Colony on the other hand or to engender or promote feelings of hostility to or contempt of any class of the inhabitants of the Colony on account of race or colour.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (NON-BRITISH CITIZENS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he was consulted by His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa as to the decrees affecting non-British citizens in the mandated territory of South-West Africa, in view of their effect on the international relations of Great Britain?

Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with His Majesty's Government of South Africa

regarding this particular matter; and does he appreciate that there might be international complications arising out of the situation?

Mr. MacDonald: His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa are solely responsible as mandatory for the administration inside the territory of South-West Africa.

Mr. Sorensen: I was simply asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he will communicate with the Government, so that we are made familiar with whatever may take place later on?

Mr. MacDonald: I can assure the hon. Member that that Government keeps us fully informed of what is going on with regard to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IRISH FREE STATE (PAPER, IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. A. Reed: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the import duty on many grades of paper entering the Irish Free State has recently been increased to 50 per cent. ad valorem, subject to certain licensing regulations; whether he was made aware of the intention of His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State to impose this prohibitive rate of duty; whether any negotiations or discussions took place thereon prior to its imposition; and, if so, whether any effort was made to secure preferential terms of entry for United Kingdom products?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, I am aware that in the recent Irish Free State Budget a duty at the rate of 50 per cent. ad valorem on certain kinds of paper was introduced. As regards the remaining parts of the hon. Member's question, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. Reed: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make some representation to the Irish Free State Government as to the evil effects of such excessive duty on the paper industry in this country?

Mr. MacDonald: I think that that is a matter which will have to wait for further trade negotiations between the two Governments.

GREECE.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the financial year 1936 to 1937 the Kingdom of Greece bought over £1,000,000 worth of goods from Great Britain in excess of British purchases from Greece; that the amount of goods purchased by Greece from Great Britain showed a marked increase on the amount purchased in the previous year; and whether His Majesty's Government will do all in their power to increase our trade with Greece by encouraging the purchase of Greek tobacco, thus lessening the present German control over that staple export and the reciprocal imports into Greece?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman): I am aware of the position of trade between this country and Greece, and of the difficulties in the way of United Kingdom export trade to Greece. I am always ready to do what is possible to assist the development of trade, but the question of the purchase of Greek tobacco is one for the trading interests—and the smokers—concerned.

BACON (PRICE).

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the wholesale cost of bacon has, since the operation of the bacon quota, increased from 56s. per cwt. to 95s. per cwt. and the selling price from 74s. 8d. per cwt. to 128s. 4d. per cwt., with a consequent increased price to the consumer; and, seeing that this increase in price is leading to a considerable decrease in consumption, especially among poorer people, will he take early steps to revise the present basis of the regulation of bacon imports?

Mr. Runciman: I am aware of the rise in bacon prices since 1932, but would point out that during that year prices were at an extremely low and generally unremunerative level. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on 24th February, and the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on 20th April.

Mr. Green: Does not the Minister think that, in view of the alarming increase

in prices and the grievances from which the poor are suffering, some action is needed?

Mr. Runciman: The whole question of bacon supplies and regulation is under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the Government do not intend to take any steps to arrest the increase in the cost of living?

Mr. Runciman: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is not justified in making that assumption.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what steps the Government intend to take?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is not a fact that the price of bacon when the Labour Government was in power was much higher than at present?

STEEL STRIP.

Mr. Banfield: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware of the shortage of steel strip and the consequent high prices of the available supply and also of the adverse effect on employment; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter;
(2) whether he is aware that the firm of H. J. Barlow and Company, Limited, of Wednesbury, have been forced to close down their tube department and to discharge 50 workers, owing to the impossibility of securing supplies of steel strip; and what steps he proposes to take to enable manufacturers to secure their raw materials in sufficient quantities, and at a reasonable price, to enable them to carry on their business?

Mr. Runciman: The British Iron and Steel Federation are making every effort to increase supplies of steel, both home and imported, and the prices of the main steel products are determined in consultation with the Import Duties Advisory Committee. With regard to the particular case referred to, I understand that this company has received its share of the material which is available, based on its purchases in recent years, but it is hoped to arrange for further supplies next week.

Mr. Banfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statements made in the industry that certain firms have more


material than they know what to do with, and that it is not distributed evenly and fairly to the smaller firms?

Mr. Runciman: If the hon. Member has any data on that subject and cares to let me have the information, I will certainly look into it.

EARTHENWARE AND POTTERY TRADES.

Mr. Donner: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made to him by the earthenware and pottery trades concerning the necessity for legislative measures in order to prevent price-cutting in that industry; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. Runciman: I have received no proposals from the pottery and earthenware trades on the matter referred to by my hon. Friend.

EGGS AND POULTRY (IMPORT DUTIES).

Major Dorman-Smith: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has been taken on the recommendations regarding the applications for increased duties submitted to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in respect to eggs not in shell and table poultry?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to answer questions of this nature, since the answer would tend to give information which might lead to forestalling.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that it is quite useless for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to report as long as the President of the Board of Trade refuses to denounce certain trade agreements?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This deals with the question of eggs not in shell.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statistics showing the number of persons at present receiving relief in Newfoundland; and whether conditions there are improving?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The returns for March, which are the latest available, show that the number of persons in New-

foundland in receipt of public relief that month was 80,016. The Governor informs me that the relief situation has since been eased in certain localities by increased industrial activity; and a substantial drop in the relief figures may be expected when the shore-fishing season opens at the end of this month.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether the condition of foreign markets in respect of the products of Newfoundland shows any improvement?

Mr. MacDonald: We have been able to improve prospects in the Italian markets as the result of the agreement recently negotiated with the Italian Government, but in regard to other important European Governments, I am afraid there is no change in prospect as far as one can see.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Does not the figure which the right hon. Gentleman quotes equal one-third of the total population of Newfoundland?

Mr. MacDonald: I should not like to give the exact fraction. It is a very considerable figure, but some thousands lower than the corresponding figure for the period before the commission of Government came into being.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

SHIPS, BRITISH REGISTRATION.

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade which of the three British ships which were officially reported by the British Embassy at Hendaye to have entered Bilbao under British naval protection soon after dawn on 23rd April were chartered by a limited liability company formed for the purpose by the Spanish Embassy in London, and which, if any, were proceeding on private charter on behalf of British subjects normally engaged in trade with Spain?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number and names of vessels which have within the last six months cleared from this country on time charter for Spanish ports in the occupation of the Spanish Government; and by whom these vessels have been chartered?

Captain A. Graham: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many steamers are on time charter to Messrs. Pope and McEwen, to the


Veronica Steamship Company, and to Mr. Reginald Jones, respectively, for the despatch of commodities to Spain?

Mr. Runciman: Information as to the persons to whom British ships are chartered is not collected or compiled by the Board of Trade, nor have the Board of Trade any means of knowing what vessels are on charter to particular persons.

Sir A. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider strengthening the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act in order to prevent the transfer of ships to the British flag, as in this case, unless they are owned, manned and under the control of British subjects?

Mr. Runciman: The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act must be strictly complied with, and we cannot admit to the Register those which are not properly qualified.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the transfer of British ships to foreign owners the normal and regular practice?

Mr. Runciman: It is exactly the opposite in this case.

Captain Cazalet: asked the President of the Board of Trade by whom the three vessels "Seabank," "Seven Seas Star," and "Joyce Llewellyn," now engaged in trade to Spain, have been chartered; whether any or all of them have been transferred to the British flag within the last six months; and, if so, the circumstances of such transfer?

Mr. Runciman: The "Seabank" and the "Joyce Llewellyn" are the same ship, "Seabank," being the present name. I have no information with regard to the chartering of this ship, or of the "Seven Seas Star." The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third part does not arise.

Captain Cazalet: Are there any conditions as to the nationality of the officers and crew that have to be fulfilled before a ship can be transferred to the British flag?

Mr. Runciman: If my hon. and gallant Friend desires to see the conditions under which a vessel can be transferred to the British flag, I shall be very glad to let him have the documents.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will investigate the formation of all new shipping companies with the object of ascertaining whether they camouflage activities of the Spanish Government under which we shall be compelled to use our Fleet to protect on the high seas vessels really belonging to another Power?

Mr. Runciman: The information referred to by my hon. Friend cannot be elicited from an examination of the documents filed under statutory requirements with the Registrar of Companies.

Captain A. Graham: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will investigate the purchase of the Belgian steamer "Morna" by Messrs. Billmeir and Company of London, its renaming as the "Stanmore," and its use in blockade running in the Spanish civil war, with the object of ascertaining whether, under the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 and 1906, the transfer to the British flag is genuine or not; and whether, in the latter case, it should be cancelled?

Mr. Runciman: The "Morna" was a British ship up to 11th December, 1936, when she was transferred to the Norwegian flag. She was subsequently transferred to the Panama flag. She was again transferred to the British flag on 15th April, 1937. The change of name to "Stanmore" has been sanctioned. The ship is owned by the Stanhope Steamship Company, which is a company entitled to own a British ship. No question of cancellation of registry, therefore, arises. The latest information in my possession is that the ship is on a voyage to Valencia.

Mr. Petherick: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the capital of the firm of J. A. Billmeir and Company, of London, owners of the steamship "Stanbrook," which was recently protected by His Majesty's Ship "Hood" during her passage to Bilbao, or the money with which the firm is operating, is British owned; if the company owns any other ships and the dates of their purchase; if the owners are British subjects; and whether this company is acting as agents for any foreign Government?

Mr. Donner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the names of the ships purchased or


chartered by Messrs. J. A. Billmeir and Company since 1st January, 1937; and from whom these ships were acquired?

Mr. Emmott: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the date of the purchase or charter by Messrs. J. A. Billmeir and Company, of London, of the steamships "Stanbrook," "Standale," "Stanholme," "Stancroft," "Stancourt," "Stancrest," "Stanhill," and "Stangrove"; and to what Spanish ports these vessels have been trading since the dates of their purchase or charter?

Mr. Runciman: Messrs. J. A. Billmeir and Company, Limited, own no ships, but are associated with the Stanhope Steamship Company, which is a company registered in the United Kingdom in 1934 and entitled to own British ships. The directors of this latter company are British, and, according to the Register, 30,500 of the 32,150 shares of the company are held by them.

Mr. Mander: Is there anything unpatriotic in supplying food to starving people?

Mr. Garro Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why his hon. Friends show no similar curiosity in regard to German and Italian ships transferred to the Spanish rebel flag, thereby evading the blockade?

Mr. Petherick: asked the President of the Board of Trade the average freights for similar cargoes at present being obtained for cargoes from British ports to Bilbao and Bayonne, Valencia and Oran, and Barcelona and Marseilles, respectively?

Mr. Runciman: As the result of inquiries made by the Board of Trade, information has been obtained as to current freight rates on coal from South Wales ports to the ports mentioned in the question. This indicates that the rates to Barcelona and Valencia are about 25s. per ton as compared with approximately 12s. to Marseilles and Oran (the quotation in the latter case relating to a much larger vessel than in the other cases) and that the respective rates for Bilbao and Bayonne are about 22s. and 7s. I am informed also that the rate for time charter business for Spanish ports is about 15s. 3d. per ton on dead weight as com-

pared with about 7s. to 7s. 6d. for the other ports.

Mr. Petherick: Is there any reason why the lives of sailors in His Majesty's Navy should be imperilled by having to protect ships engaged in this very hazardous trade which are making such high profits as disclosed by the answer?

Mr. James Griffiths: Is it not desirable that the Welsh export trade with Spain should be kept up and not lost, having regard to the serious unemployment in that area?

Mr. Runciman: Such protection as is given by the British Navy to British merchant shipping is given irrespective of the amount of profit.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not this increase in freights gladden the right hon. Gentleman's heart?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the objection of hon. Members opposite to high profits?

Mr. Petherick: asked the President of the Board of Trade the dates of registration of the firms owning the steamships "Marie Llewellyn," "Joyce Llewellyn," "Seven Seas Spray," "Marvia," "Thorpehall," and "Jenny," now or recently engaged in running to Spanish ports; when these ships were bought by the respective owners; whether the owners are British subjects; whether the capital of the firms or the money with which they are operating is British owned; and whether the firms are acting as agents for any foreign Government?

Mr. Runciman: As the answer to the first two parts of the question involves a complex statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The owners of the ships are private companies registered in the United Kingdom. I have no information as to the ultimate source of the capital with which these companies are operating, nor whether they are acting as agents for any foreign Government.

Mr. Petherick: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his endeavours to find out the answer to the last two parts of the question?

Mr. Mander: Is this part of the information supplied by the Marquis del Moral?

Following is the statement:


Name of Ship.
Name of Owners.
Date of Registration of Companies.
Date ships were purchased.


"Marie Llewellyn"
Dillwyn Steamship Co., Ltd.
23rd January, 1937
25th January, 1937


"Joyce Llewellyn" (renamed "Sea Bank".)
Veronica Steamship Co., Ltd.
19th December, 1936
26th January, 1937


"Seven Seas Spray"
Veronica Steamship Co. Ltd.
19th December, 1936
22nd March, 1937


"Marvia"
Thameside Shipping Co., Ltd.
25th November, 1936
30th November, 1936


"Thorpehall" ex "Bazan."
Westcliff Shipping Co., Ltd.
23rd October, 1936
26th October, 1936


"Jenny"
Trent Maritime Co., Ltd.
12th February, 1937
On or about 25th March, 1937

Mr. Donner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any ships registered under the Spanish or other flags have been transferred to the British flag since 1st January of this year?

Mr. Runciman: No Spanish ships have been transferred to the United Kingdom register since 1st January, but 47 ships of other foreign nationalities have been so transferred; 37 of these were small vessels of under 1,000 tons gross. In addition, 10 ships of foreign nationality, of which one is a small Spanish sailing ship, have been transferred to the British flag in British Oversea Dominions and Protectorates.

Mr. George Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Franco has taken over the Donner, Lennox-Boyd and Cazalet ships?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the names of the firms owning the ships "Marie Llewellyn," "Joyce Llewellyn," "Seven Seas Spray," "Marvia," "Thorpehall," and "Jenny," now en-

Name of ship.
Name of owners.
Date of Fortnightly Supplement to Lloyd's Register 1936/7 in which Companies' names appear.


"Marie Llewellyn"
…
…
Dillwyn Steamship Co., Ltd.
…
15th February, 1937.


"Joyce Llewellyn" (renamed "Sea Bank").
Veronica Steamship Co., Ltd.
…
15th February, 1937.


"Seven Seas Spray"
…
…
Veronica Steamship Co., Ltd.
…
15th February, 1937.


"Marvia"
…
…
Thameside Shipping Co., Ltd
30th December, 1936.


"Thorpehall"
…
…
Westcliff Shipping Co., Ltd.
…
16th November, 1936.


"Jenny"
…
…
Trent Maritime Co., Ltd.
…
Not yet published.

Mr. Emmott: asked the president of the Board of Trade the number of port

gaged in trade to territories occupied by the Spanish Government; and whether the names of these firms appear in the current list in Lloyd's Register?

Mr. Runciman: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the particulars for which he asks, together with the dates on which the names of the companies owning the ships appeared in the Fortnightly Supplement to Lloyd's Register.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask regarding the last sentence whether any of the names of these firms do appear in the current list in Lloyd's Register?

Mr. Runciman: I could not say without refreshing my memory, but that is the source from which we get our information.

Mr. Gallacher: Is this some of the shot and shell which the Marquis del Moral promised to hon. Members if they voted against the Government?

Following are the particulars:

clearances effected by the Veronica Steam-ship Company, of Porthcawl, since its


formation; and between what ports the vessels belonging to this company have traded?

Mr. Runciman: According to Lloyd's daily shipping index, vessels registered as owned by the Veronica Steamship Company had made, prior to 28th April, six clearances in trading between the ports of Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Gijon, Santander and Valencia.

TRAMP SHIPPING SUBSIDY.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what sum has been paid by the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee in the form of subsidy to owners of vessels the majority of whose crews are signed under Asiatic articles and are not employed under the conditions laid down by the National Maritime Board?

Mr. Runciman: It is estimated that the amount of subsidy paid in respect of voyages or parts of voyages carried out in 1936 on which crews were signed on under Asiatic articles is in the neighbourhood of £170,000. The hon. Member will appreciate that National Maritime Board agreements as to rates of wages do not apply to crews signed on under Asiatic articles.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is that only people signed under the National Maritime Board are receiving the subsidy?

Mr. Runciman: Where that is applicable, of course, it is true.

OIL SEPARATORS.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government have taken on the report received from the League of Nations, prepared by a committee of experts, on the subject of fitting oil separators on all new vessels; and how many British ships are at present so fitted?

Mr. Runciman: It is hoped that the draft convention appended to the report to which the hon. Member refers will be submitted to an international conference in due course. As regards the number of British merchant ships fitted with separators, I have no later information than that given on page 4 of the White Paper issued in October, 1933. This

showed that of the oil-burning and oil-carrying vessels which were the subject of the inquiries then made, 24 per cent. were so fitted.

Mr. Day: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the recommendation of this committee embodied in an international convention?

Mr. Runciman: We have already endorsed their report.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FISHING INDUSTRY (ABERDEEN).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now considered the hardship imposed on fishermen in Aberdeen by the obligation to pay Board of Trade signing on and off fees, totalling well over £1,000 per annum; whether he is aware that this liability is not imposed on fishermen in other ports; and whether he can now announce the abolition of these charges?

Mr. Runciman: As I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen, South (Sir D. Thomson) on 15th December last, the fees charged at Aberdeen in connection with the arrangements there for the engagement and discharge of fishermen at the Mercantile Marine Office are under consideration. As soon as a decision has been reached, the hon. Gentleman will be informed. He, is, of course, aware that it is not compulsory for fishermen to be engaged and discharged at a Mercantile Marine office. This arrangement at Aberdeen is carried on, I understand, by virtue of an understanding between the trawler owners and the fishermen.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right honk Gentleman realise that this matter was under consideration in December last, and that it is now May? When may a decision be expected?

Mr. Runciman: I cannot say when a conclusion will be reached, but I would point out that there are more parties concerned in this matter than the Board of Trade.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it necessary to take more than six months to consult them; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I brought it to his attention 12 months ago?

Mr. Runciman: The arrangement existing then between employers and fishermen still remains the same.

JUVENILE CRIME (MARYHILL).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any report from the sub-committee appointed by the Glasgow Corporation to inquire into the question of juvenile crime in Maryhill?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I am informed that the Corporation have considered the statistics of juvenile crime in the Maryhill Division and have no further observations to make on the facts and figures supplied by the Chief Constable of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Mr. Davidson: In view of the great dissatisfaction in Maryhill with the high figures published with regard to juvenile crime, will not the right hon. Gentleman intervene personally and see whether something cannot be done in the matter?

Mr. Elliot: That might be regarded by the Corporation as interference.

EMPIRE EXHIBITION, GLASGOW (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any steps have been taken to ensure that Glasgow unemployed men and women will be given preference, where possible, of employment at the Empire exhibition in Bella-houston Park, Glasgow?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the 12 contracts which have so far been placed have been given to Glasgow firms, and that the contractors have been specially; requested to make use of the local Employment Exchanges in engaging labour. In order to facilitate the engagement of labour an Employment Exchange has been set up at the exhibition site.

NECESSITOUS SCHOOLCHILDREN (GLASGOW).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of schoolchildren in Maryhill, Glasgow, receiving free meals, as necessitous cases, for the years 1935 and 1936, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the numbers are 607 and 710, respectively.

Mr. Davidson: In view of that increase, will the right hon. Gentleman support the representations made by Glasgow Corporation to have the second city of the Empire scheduled as a Special Area?

HOUSING.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make regarding the decision of the Linlithgow Town Council not to proceed with the building of houses on the West Port site owing to the tenders showing that the cost per house would be 100 per cent. above that paid for similar houses; and whether he proposes to take steps to enable the council to proceed with these houses?

Mr. Elliot: I understand that a substantial part of the high cost of the proposed houses at West Port, Linlithgow, is due to the fact that they are of stone construction and are designed to harmonise with the existing architecture in the main street of the burgh. The total number of houses involved is only 19 and the decision of the town council not to proceed with these houses meantime should not seriously affect general progress with housing in Linlithgow.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the increase in, industrial activity in Linlithgow and the imperative need for proceeding with new houses as quickly as possible; and does not the fact of this very large increase in building costs point to the need for some action on the right hon. Gentleman's part?

Mr. Elliot: The matter is hardly one which can be discussed at Question Time, but I have had the whole matter under serious consideration with the housing authority.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution from the town council of Armadale asking for the housing subsidy to be increased to the equivalent of the 1924 Act figure, owing to the increasing costs which are attributed to the Government's armament policy; and whether he proposes to take any action?

Mr. Elliot: I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to, and I would refer the hon. Member to the general statement regarding housing subsidies in Scotland


which I made in reply to a question by him on 23rd March. I am not in a position to add anything to that statement.

Mr. Mathers: The right hon. Gentleman has just said in reply to a former question of mine that he has been in consultation with the local housing authority. May we be informed of the results of the consultations

Mr. Elliot: That matter cannot be discussed at Question Time. There are many opportunities, and I shall be happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman after questions, if he desires.

Mr. Davidson: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the Scottish Members at least: any indication whether agreement was reached at these consultations on the question of building materials?

Mr. Elliot: It was not a question of reaching agreement, but of going over the difficulties which local authorities are experiencing.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the general consensus of opinion that if prices go up the subsidy should go up, is it not necessary to raise the subsidy in view of the rise in the cost of building materials?

TRAVEL ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Guy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of local authorities which make contributions to the Scottish Travel Association; and the total amount contributed in the last financial year?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that during the local financial year 1936–37, 103 local authorities have contributed towards the funds of the Scottish Travel Association. The total amount so contributed during the last five years is £1,944 6s.

Mr. Guy: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it would be to the advantage of the different authorities if they increased these contributions?

Mr. Elliot: I think that it would be, and I hope that they will increasingly support this association in future.

HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to introduce legislation this Session in order to give increased powers to the Herring Industry Board?

Mr. Elliot: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the question on this subject addressed to me by my hon Friend on 20th April.

Mr. Boothby: Whether the Minister is going to introduce this legislation or not, can he at a later stage let us have a copy of the report of the Herring Board which asked for these powers?

Mr. Elliot: The report is of a confidential nature, but I will look into it.

SHALE DEPOSITS (OIL EXTRACTION).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Scottish shale deposits and the methods used to extract oil therefrom will be included in the scope of the promised sub-committee inquiry; and whether the Freeman process will be fully tested in accordance with the formula of its inventor?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): In my view the terms of reference are wide enough to cover the shale oil industry, but in regard to both points raised in the question, it must be left to the Committee to decide how they will conduct their inquiry.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not a fact that the Minister has announced this sub-committee as a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and have not the Government, therefore, full control of it and of its actions, and are they not able to dictate the scope it shall cover?

Captain Crookshank: I have already said that, in my view, the terms of reference are wide enough to cover this point.

Mr. Mathers: Then will it be the Minister's advice to this sub-committee to cover this point?

Captain Crookshank: I have no doubt that the members of the sub-committee will see the hon. Member's question and will also appreciate my reply.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Mr. Brocklebank: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make any statement is regard to the insurance of property in this country against war risks on land?

Mr. Runciman: After a careful review of all the circumstances the Government have reached the conclusion that no


scheme of insurance of property in this country against war risks on land would be appropriate to the conditions of a future war so far as they can be foreseen to-day. In the opinion of the Government the most effective form of protection against air-raid risks lies in the effective prosecution of their present programme of rearmament. If, however, the conditions arise which any scheme of insurance would be designed to meet, it will be for the Government of the day to consider making to owners, whose property had suffered damage, such compensation as may be possible at that time.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Would not the best form of insurance for the people of this country be to get rid of the present Government?

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT, 1927 (AMENDMENT).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether replies have been received from the various cinema trade organisations with reference to the amendments the Government propose to introduce to the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and when these suggested amendments will be published?

Mr. Runciman: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 22nd April to the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine).

Mr. Day: What portions of the industry have not yet replied?

Mr. Runciman: I am afraid I cannot add to the information given on 22nd April.

Mr. Day: Have the producers been consulted?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SURREY COMMONS (TRACKS, SURFACING).

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that a metalled road is being made across the military land known as Royal Common, Surrey, towards Ockley Common; and, in view of the detriment to the amenities of this much-frequented common, the work will cause and of the extent to which it will enable private motor-cars to gain

access to the group of commons in this neighbourhood, with consequent increase in deposit of litter and other unsightliness, will he have the work recently done and the resulting disfigurement removed?
(2) by whose authority large unbroken flints have recently been deposited and in some places spread on the tracks used by the public across the military lands known as Thursley, Ockley, Royal, and other commons in Surrey; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce the inconvenience, discomfort, and danger caused to civilians and horses by the depositing and spreading of these flints?
(3) whether he is aware that quantities of large flints have been deposited on the whole width of the track joining Ockley and Royal Commons included in the military lands in Surrey, causing inconvenience, discomfort, and danger to the civilian foot and horse passengers using this much-frequented way; and will he have the present state of affairs speedily remedied?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): The only work in the neighbourhood which is being undertaken by the War Department is the repair, necessitated by military user, of the track leading from the Elstead-Milford road southwards across Royal Common to Ockley Common, in accordance with the terms of a licence granted to the War Department by the land owner and at his request. The coarse gravel at present laid down will be surfaced with fine gravel and rolled, so that no inconvenience or danger to civilians or horses using the track should arise.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an inspection of this work to be made to see whether unbroken flints eight inches long can be accurately described as gravel?

Mr. Cooper: I will look into the matter. I understand that the work has not yet been finished, and that some of these flints may have been left lying on the roads, but that ultimately the road will be much improved.

OFFICER CADETS.

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements will be made for pay and allowances to be issued to officer cadets


from the Universities during their attachment to Regular Army units in order to qualify themselves for obtaining commissions in the Regular Army, so that these cadets shall not suffer personal financial loss during the period of their attached service?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir. I see no reason to depart from the general practice whereby candidates for professions do not receive pay while undergoing examinations or preliminary training.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not very hard on these patriotic young men, who wish to fit themselves to take commissions, that they should be put to personal expense in this matter?

SHELL CONTRACTS.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for War what time limit was fixed for the delivering of 3·45-inch shell in the contracts made with private manufacturing firms in September and October, 1936?

Mr. Cooper: The governing date was 3Ist March, 1939.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for War what prices were stipulated for 3·45-inch shell in the contracts made with private manufacturing firms in September and October, 1936?

Mr. Cooper: It is not the practice of Government Departments to disclose information of this nature.

DISABILITY PENSIONS AND GRATUITIES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to see that all men serving in the Army who have to be discharged through illness or accident other than through their own criminal acts shall receive maintenance or compensation until they have recovered?

Mr. Cooper: Soldiers discharged from the Army through illness or accident attributable to military service are already eligible for disability pensions which continue in issue as long as their disablement persists, unless that disablement is of a minor nature. If the illness or accident is not attributable to military service, the soldiers are, as a general rule, eligible for gratuities only and not for pensions.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the Secretary of State for the information he has given, does he realise that there are large numbers of men who have been discharged from the Army through illness or accidents, and who, in fact, have no gratuity or compensation; and does he not agree that that leaves a very bad impression on the public mind; and further, does he not agree that the Army would set a great example to the rest of the country if it made every man who was discharged entitled to some kind of compensation?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member will not expect a different system to exist in the Army from that which exists in other Departments of State. While I appreciate the view he has expressed, we are bound to take into consideration whether a man's illness or disability incurred while he is in the Service is in any way attributable to his service. If that is not so, according to the system which exists throughout Government Departments and civil life, the State cannot undertake to pay a pension on account of that disability or accident.

Mr. Sorensen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to try to revise the system and to set an example to other Departments?

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the new Secretary of State will make any alteration?

MARRIAGE BILL.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the substantial progress made in the Report stage of the Marriage Bill, and the fact that it was not possible to complete the Report stage on Friday, 16th April, and that this House did not meet on Friday, 23rd April, he will consider finding time for the completion of the Report and Third Reading stages, in view of the considerable majorities on Friday, 16th April, in favour of the Bill?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the intention of the Government respecting facilities for the Marriage Bill?

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to this question, may I ask him—

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary questions are usually put after the reply.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: On a point of Order. I am asking my right hon. Friend, before he replies to this question—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject. Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to repeat their questions on Thursday next.

Mr. De la Bère: May I thank the Prime Minister very much for the kind way in which he is assisting in this matter, and for the kind support which, I am sure, will be forthcoming, and may I ask the hon. Burgess for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) to exercise a little more restraint in future?

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister, will he assure the House that he will not prevent this Bill from being discussed through the activities of a minority of the population?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member had better await my reply.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that since this Bill was introduced there has been a large and growing volume of opinion in the House and in the country against its provisions?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. Thurtle: In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to take into consideration the fact that the great bulk of enlightened opinion in this country wants the Bill?

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AND CURRENCY).

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government contemplate entering into negotiations with the Government of the United States of America for the conclusion of an economic agreement covering a wider field than the recent currency agreement?

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to-day to the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Lathan) and to that which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on 13th April in reply to supplementary questions.

Mr. Boothby: Arising out of that reply, does not the Prime Minister himself think that the best hope of securing a revival of confidence and of international trade would be an agreement between the British Empire and the United States of America, and may I ask my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely a matter of opinion.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if an economic agreement of some kind with the United States is inevitable, it would be advisable to make a start now?

The Prime Minister: I cannot recognise that anything in this world is inevitable, but in answer to the question, my right hon. Friend said that exploratory discussions were still proceeding. Exploration implies digging, and the ground has to be well cleared.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that since December of last year the United States Treasury has bought and sterilised, at considerable expense, over 500,000,000 dollars of gold; and whether with a view to stabilising world currencies and prices and reviving international trade, His Majesty's Government are prepared to co-operate with the Government of the United States in the purchase of such fresh supplies of gold as are available for monetary purposes?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part of the question, a general co-operation is maintained with the Government of the United States of America and other parties to the Tripartite Agreement with the purpose of maintaining equilibrium in the international exchange system as far as possible, and in the pursuit of this policy gold is purchased when necessary. No change in this respect has taken place.

Mr. Boothby: Was not the Tripartite Agreement intended to be a temporary measure, and in view of the fact that it obviously leaves something to be desired, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that his Department will keep in the closest touch with the Treasury in Washington with a view to ensuing the maximum of co-operation between the two countries in this matter?

Mr. Chamberlain: The Treasury does keep in touch with the Treasury at Washington.

THE CORONATION.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Lord President of the Council who gave the order that male spectators who have seats on the stands around the Queen Victoria Memorial will not be allowed to occupy them unless they wear frock or tail coats?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No such instruction as that suggested has been given.

Mr. Thorne: Are we to understand then, that this statement in the papers was absolutely wrong?

Mr. MacDonald: I do not know about statements in the papers but there has been no such instruction.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain mayors of Metropolitan boroughs have been informed that they will be required to wear Court dress?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

HONOURS (FEES AND STAMP DUTIES).

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that heavy fees and stamp duties are payable to public funds on the conferment of honours and dignities of the Crown; and whether he will consider the desirability of abolishing these fees and stamp duties?

Mr. Chamberlain: The question referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend has been under examination by a committee, who have just submitted their report. The committee recommend that the fees and stamp duties payable to public funds on the conferment of honours and dignities by the Crown should be

abolished, and with this recommendation I fully concur. Steps are being taken to give immediate effect to the committee's recommendation by the inclusion of a Clause in the Finance Bill, 1937. I am arranging for copies of the committee's report to be circulated.

Mr. Mander: Are donations to party funds also to be abolished?

NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in drafting any legislation to provide for a National Defence Contribution, he will consider the possibility of making the liability dependent upon increase of income only without taking into account the amount of assets or working capital, so as to save the taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department from the labour and expense of the special valuations which will otherwise be required, and so as to reduce thereby the possibility of disputed claims and consequent litigation?

Mr. Chamberlain: I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire for simplicity in the framing of the legislation dealing with the National Defence Contribution. I am afraid, however, that a graduated tax on growth of profits which took no account of capital, must necessarily work inequitably as between different taxpayers, and I am therefore unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the fact that the ascertainment of capital values will mean large sums being expended on lawyers and is bound to result in great delay in the collection of the revenue?

INCOME TAX.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions have been given to Inland Revenue authorities not to assess properties under Schedule A below the rating assessment; and, if this is so, will he issue further instructions that they are not to assess properties above the rating valuation unless exceptional circumstances exist?

Mr. Chamberlain: No such instructions have been issued. The annual values of properties for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax (Schedule A) are determined by the General Commissioners of Income Tax, and, as my hon. Friend is aware, the value for rating purposes is


only one of the factors which are taken into consideration in determining those assessments.

Mr. Crowder: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public are becoming puzzled and annoyed at receiving two different assessments for the same property; and could he see his way to give instructions that there should be some uniformity in this respect, as both the rating authority and the revenue authority have to ascertain at what price the property could be let year by year.

Mr. Chamberlain: It would take too long to discuss here the difference between assessments for Schedule A and assessments for rating purposes, but my hon. Friend is aware that different considerations arise in the two cases.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue authorities are continuing to, maintain that in many cases the local rating valuation of properties is below the full letting value; and what sources of information are available to these authorities that are not available to the rating committees, composed for the most part of business men with long experience of local conditions, and which enable the former to estimate differently the value which a tenant may reasonably be expected to pay for any property?

Mr. Chamberlain: The annual values of properties for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax under Schedule A are determined by the General Commissioners of Income Tax under the rules of the Income Tax Acts applicable to Schedule A. The values for rating purposes are determined by numerous separate and independent authorities, and are only one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the values for Income Tax purposes. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 9th July last and the reply which was given to the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) on 6th July last. I am sending him copies of those replies.

Mr. Thorne: If one fills in an Income Tax form and puts in the assessment of the house according to the rateable valuation of the local authority, are the Inland Revenue Commissioners entitled to alter it?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

NORTHUMBERLAND (STATISTICS).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of employés under 21 years and those above 21 years employed on the surface about the mines in Northumberland for the years 1924 and 1936?

Captain Crookshank: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The particulars collected by my Department do not enable me to give the desired information, but in December, 1936, there were 2,320 persons under 20 years of age and 8,692 persons 20 years of age and over employed above ground at mines under the Coal Mines Act in Northumberland. Comparable figures are not available for 1924, but in December, 1925, there were 2,181 persons under 20 years of age and 9,778 persons 20 years of age and over.

Mr. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal sold in the inland and export markets, respectively, from the Northumberland coalfield from 1922 and each year to date?

Captain Crookshank: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The only figures available in regard to the disposals of Northumberland coal in the inland and export markets respectively are as follow:


Disposals as returned by the Executive Board to the Central Council.


Year.
Export Supply.*
Inland Supply, †



Tons.
Tons.


1935
4,668,653
8,709,453


1936
4,553,406
9,221,154


*"Export Supply" means loading at the customary shipping places of the district as cargo into ships for conveyance therein to destinations outside the United Kingdom, the Irish Free State, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, or as fuel for use on ships proceeding to such destinations, or as fuel for use on fishing vessels or supply to works situated at ports to be used for the preparation of patent fuel for export.


† "Inland Supply" means supply other-wise than as Export Supply, including supply to other parts of an undertaking of which

the coal mine forms part, but excluding supply for use in working the coal mines and supply free or at reduced rates for the use of persons who are or have been employed in or about the mine and the dependents of persons who have been so employed.

Mr. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines the average output per ton per man-shift, the price pit-head f.o.b. and c.i.f., the amount per ton of wages, profits, royalties and management ex-

NORTHUMBERLAND.





Per ton of coal disposable commercially.





Costs.






Year.
Output of Saleable coal per Manshift worked.
Wages.
Royalties (including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietor).
Stores and Timber.
Other costs (including Management). (a)
Total Costs of Production.
Proceeds.
Balance. Credit (+). Debit (-).




Cwts.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


1922
…
17·36
10
11½
0
7¼
2
3½
2
11
16
9¼
18
6
+1
8¾


1923
…
17·08
12
7¾
0
7
2
2¼
2
9¾
18
2¾
21
0½
+2
9¾


1924
…
17·30
12
6
0
6¾
2
0¼
3
1¼
18
2¼
18
7½
+0
5¼


1925
…
18·19
(b) 11
2¾
0
7
1
8¾
3
0¾
(b)16
7¼
14
6¼
-0
6½


1927
…
21·66
8
7¼
0
6½
1
7¼
2
9¾
13
6¾
12
10¾
-0
8


1928
…
22·13
7
4
0
6¼
1
5¼
2
9
12
0½
11
0½
-1
0


1929
…
22·54
7
0¼
0
5½
1
4
2
4½
11
2¼
11
8
+0
5¾


1930
…
22·60
7
3
0
5¾
1
5¼
2
5½
11
7½
12
3¾
+0
8¼


1931
…
22·77
7
2¾
0
6
1
4
2
5¾
11
6½
11
7½
+0
1


1932
…
22·76
7
1½
0
5¾
1
5
2
7½
11
7¾
11
2¾
-0
5


1933
…
23·19
7
0¼
0
6
1
5
2
5½
11
4¾
11
2
-0
2¾


1934
…
23·74
6
11
0
6
1
4¾
2
4¾
11
2½
11
1½
-0
1


1935
…
23·71
7
0¼
0
5¾
1
6¼
2
4¾
11
5
11
6½
+0
1½


1936
…
23·58
7
6¾
0
5¾
1
7¼
2
6
12
1¾
12
8
+0
6¼


(a) Including salaries, insurances, repairs, office and general expenses, contributions to the Miners' Welfare Fund, remuneration of working proprietors, depreciation, etc., but not certain items such as interest on debentures or other loans, bank charges, amortisation and taxation which the Mining Association of Great Britain estimate to amount to 3d. per ton or more.


(b) Including Subvention.


Figures are not given for the year 1926 when there was a protracted dispute in the coal mining industry.

LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of systems of low temperature carbonisation that have been introduced; how many have been examined by the research department; and what number are likely to be of service?

Captain Crookshank: With regard to the first and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 16th March to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), a copy of which I am sending to him. As regards the second part, 15 plants have up to the present date been tested by the

penses for the Northumberland coalfield for 1922 and each year to date?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that the desired information with regard to f.o.b. and c.i.f. prices is not available, but, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the available figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research under the Government's published scheme for testing low temperature carbonisation plants.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines the precise nature of the preventive measures that have so substantially reduced the incidence of silicosis in the Rand mines; whether these preventive measures are made obligatory upon the Rand mineowners by statute or regulations; in how many collieries in Great Britain and South Wales, respectively, these preventive measures are in use; and whether he proposes to issue the


regulations to make their adoption obligatory upon the mines of this country?

Captain Crookshank: In South Africa those mines which are scheduled under the Miners' Phthisis Benefits Law are subject to regulations requiring special preventive measures to be taken. I cannot, within the limits of an answer, state those preventive measures precisely, but the general purport is to provide for initial and periodical medical examination of persons exposed to the risk and for the suppression of harmful dust which might be breathed by such workers. I have not sufficient statistical information to enable me to answer the third part of the question. As regards the fourth part, the South African regulations apply only to the scheduled mines which, generally, I understand, are the metalliferous and not the coal mines; and, as at present advised, I do not propose, as regards the coal mines of this country, to displace the method of differentiating requirements according to risk in favour of applying the same requirements to all these mines. The whole matter is, however, under consideration by the Royal Commission now sitting.

Mr. Griffiths: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman make available the full statute covering this question in the Rand mines? In reference to the last part of the reply, will he consider applying these measures in an experimental way to a number of collieries where the incidence of silicosis is very high?

Viscountess Astor: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that dozens of questions have been asked on this side of the House about this appalling disease, and will he try any experiment in order to get rid of it?

Captain Crookshank: The noble Lady need not worry where the questions come from; the problem is always under my consideration. As regards the first supplementary question, I will certainly see whether the statute can be made available, but probably it is already in the Library of the House.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of applying these remedies experimentally to a number of pits where the incidence of silicosis is high?

Captain Crookshank: I shall have to look into that. I think the hon. Gentleman had better study my reply first to see the essential differences between the two cases.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost, averaged over 20 years, of increasing pensions at 65 of all adult beneficiaries, including widows, under both the contributory pensions and the old age pensions schemes, to £1 per week and 35s. for a married couple, with retirement as a condition of acceptance of pension?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: If retirement were made a condition of the grant of the increased pension, the actual additional cost would depend on the number who accepted the offer, and it is therefore not possible to give an accurate estimate. The additional cost of increasing pensions at 65 to all old age and contributory pensioners (including widows) to £1 a week (with 35s. for a married couple) would be about £75,000,000 a year at the present time, rising to about £95,000,000 in 20 years' time.

Mr. T. Smith: Does that figure of £75,000,000 take into consideration the savings which would be made in other directions?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The figure, as I explained, is a very approximate estimate because it is impossible to say how many would take advantage of the offer, but I have given as nearly as I can a figure to represent the net cost.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not possible for this country to take this in its stride, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) said it could take the War Debt in its stride?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that if this meant a reduction of the numbers now in industry, others would be taken off the Employment Exchanges and brought into industry; and would there not be in that way an almost commensurate saving?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I recognise the hon. Member's point. He will agree, however, that persons are being taken off the Employment Exchanges at the present time owing to the policy of the National Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

FOREST WORKERS (WAGES).

Sir A. Wilson: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners whether it is proposed to make any increase in the wages of forest workers?

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): The Commissioners have recently increased the standard time rate of wages of their forest workers in England and Wales from 35s. to 37s. per week. In Scotland where there is no standard rate the increase in the weekly wage is 2S. in the North-East Division and is. in the North and the South-West Divisions.

DURHAM COUNTY AND SOUTH WALES.

Mr. Sexton: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many acres have been definitely secured, under the scheme to assist to reduce unemployment in the Special Areas, within the county of Durham; how many unemployed Durham county men have been set to work on such acquired acreage; and how much money has been paid in wages to those men for their forestry work?

Sir G. Courthope: The Forestry Commissioners have not secured any land within the county of Durham under the Special Areas scheme.

Mr. Sexton: Is it not about time the Forestry Commission were doing something in the county of Durham, after 18 months of promises during which nothing has been done?

Sir G. Courthope: I would point out that Durham is not an area by itself. We have already acquired more than 10,000 acres within the Special Area of which Durham forms part, and we are in negotiation for a further nearly 8,000 acres, but the legal formalities are not yet completed. Those 8,000 acres include land in the county of Durham.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is plenty of land for this purpose available in the county of Durham, and why do not the Commission take immediate action in the matter?

Sir G. Courthope: We are taking immediate and continuous action.

Mr. Sexton: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many acres have been definitely secured, under the scheme to assist to reduce unemployment in the Special Areas, in or near the Special Areas of South Wales and Durham, respectively; and the total cost of such land in each of the respective areas?

Sir G. Courthope: The Forestry Commissioners have secured in South Wales under the Special Areas scheme 2,518 acres of plantable land, 509 acres of agricultural land for nurseries and workers' holdings, etc., and other assets at a cost of £22,000. The net cost of the plantable land was £8,600. No land has been secured in or near Durham under the scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government will consider the setting up of a distributors' board to deal with the distribution of milk throughout the country, and the registration of all existing dairymen?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any suggestion with regard to the organisation of the milk industry which any section of the industry may care to make.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the Minister how long it will be before we may expect some concrete and crystallised suggestions from the Minister?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I can assure my hon. Friend that if he has any suggestions to make, my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider them.

Mr. Mander: Are we to understand that the hon. Member has crossed the Floor of the House as a protest against the Government's policy?

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend not aware that beer is best?

Mr. Haydn Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the commissioner who held a public inquiry into the Milk Marketing Board's amendments to the Milk Scheme has yet reported; and,


if so, how soon does he propose to issue his decision in regard thereto?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As soon as the report comes to hand, which should be shortly, it will receive my right hon. Friend's immediate attention.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total quantity of liquid milk used in the manufacture of chocolate in the United Kingdom for each year since the establishment of the Milk Marketing Board; the price paid per gallon by the chocolate manufacturers; and the total cost to the Milk Marketing Board arising from the sale of this milk at a price below the cost of production?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am informed by the Milk Marketing Board that the quantity of whole liquid milk used in the manufacture of chocolate in England and Wales is insignificant. The price of such milk as has been sold for the purpose was 8d. per gallon in the first two years of the scheme and 9d. per gallon since. I understand that milk is generally used by chocolate makers in the form of condensed milk or milk powder, either manufactured by themselves or purchased from other manufacturers. The board have no information as to the quantities of these products so used. For information as to the position in Scotland, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

FOOD COUNCIL (REPORT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take as a result of the report by the Food Council to the effect that consumers have legitimate cause for complaint in so far as marketing schemes, which were intended to give primary producers the power to organise and co-ordinate the sale of their produce, confer in addition powers of intervention in the subsequent stages of treatment and distribution which are not the province of producers and of which they cannot be expected to have expert knowledge, particularly in respect of milk, bacon, and potatoes?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The views of the Food Council are receiving careful consideration, together with other independent and authoritative views of varying import on the subject of the organised

marketing of agricultural products. My right hon. Friend is not at present prepared to say what action, if any, is called for.

Mr. Mander: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think I can answer that question.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether he is aware that white fish landed in March fetched an average of only 14s. 4d. per cwt. for the producers; that the price is 25 per cent. below the corresponding pre-War average while the price of coal and stores is substantially higher, and that these two factors are together threatening the livelihood of those engaged in the industry, bringing ruin to skippers and mates in ports where pay is dependent on profits, driving valuable trained fishermen to seek other occupation and causing serious neglect of the condition of the trawlers in all, except one, ports; and whether he is in a position to announce any legislative or other measures to meet this situation;
(2) whether he has observed the serious damage which is being imposed on Aberdeen, Fleetwood, Milford Haven, and other fishing ports by the heavy landings of distant water fish at Hull; that this class of fish is depreciating the prices earned on the port markets, not only for landings from distant fishing grounds but for fish caught in home waters as well, for which uneconomic prices of only 1½d. per lb. are now being received with no advantage in price reaching the consumer; and whether he has under consideration any proposals to meet a situation which threatens the existence of at least five important fishing ports and the livelihood of those dependent on the industry?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties confronting the trawling industry as a result of recent developments, but has nothing to add to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson).

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SOUTH WEST DURHAM IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state when the South West Durham Improvement Association will be set up; and can he now give the names of the persons who will be appointed to serve on this association?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): While I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the personnel of the proposed South West Durham Improvement Association, I can assure the hon. Member that the Commissioner for the Special Areas (England and Wales) fully realises the desirability of appointing the board of that body as early as possible and he is making every effort to that end.

Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate date?

Mr. Brown: I cannot give the date to-day.

MUNITION WORKS, CHORLEY.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state how many unemployed persons have been found work in connection with the new munition works at Euxton, Chorley, through the Employment Exchanges at Aspull, Blackrod, Hindley, and Westhoughton, respectively; what is the trade union or other recognised wage standard for labouring work at Euxton; and whether imported Irish labourers are receiving that wage?

Mr. E. Brown: Out of a total of 370 men placed in employment at this site through the Exchanges seven were placed through the Exchanges mentioned in the question and I am informed that another seven obtained employment by direct application. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the rate of wages agreed upon by the organisations of employers and workers concerned for navvies and labourers engaged in clearing this site is 1s. 1½d. an hour. As regards the last part of the question, I would point out that the contract contains the usual fair wages clause applicable to Government contracts, and I am not aware that there has been any complaint that the clause is not being observed.

Mr. Davies: In view of the small number of workers engaged on these munition works who have been obtained through the Employment Exchanges named in the question, is it not possible to compel a contractor who is doing work for the Government to use Employment Exchanges for the purpose of finding labour instead of bringing men over from Ireland?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member has given notice to raise this subject on the Adjournment, and I think he had better wait until the issue can be raised there.

AIR LINER "CAPRICORNUS,"

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the proceedings of the inquiry now being held on the recent disaster to the "Capricornus" will be published; and whether a separate and public inquiry will be held in this country?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): In reply to the first part of the question, I am not at present in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) on 14th April. As regards the last part, my Noble Friend will be in a better position to consider whether or not any additional inquiry is desirable when the report of the French investigation becomes available to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (SCOTLAND).

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether any schemes of railway electrification in Scotland are being prepared by the railway companies;
(2) whether in reviewing the transport problems of Glasgow and the surrounding counties, he will consider railway electrification as a part solution of the problem and press upon the railway companies the need for action in this direction?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The London Midland and Scottish Railway inform me that they have under continual review the circumstances throughout their line from the point of view of the promotion of electrification schemes wherever this can be justified, but that no such schemes are in preparation


so far as Scotland is concerned. The London and North Eastern Railway state that they are not proposing to undertake any electrification schemes in the Glasgow district, as it has not been found possible to devise any such scheme which could be justified on economic grounds.

Mr. Leonard: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired into the density of the rail traffic in Scotland, and does he not think it would be advisable to press upon the companies to take some action in this direction?

TRUNK ROADS (LIGHTING).

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state his policy as to the lighting of the trunk roads; and whether he is prepared to recommend that the London-Coventry-Birmingham main road be provided with a system of overhead lighting?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 7th April.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Has the Minister come to any decision as to the type of lighting to be used on the trunk roads?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, the Lighting Committee have not yet reported.

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Transport the relative cost per mile of lighting roads by the mercury vapour lamps with that of other systems such as the sodium lamps used on the Purley Way, Croydon, taking into consideration both their capital cost and the expense of their replacement and maintenance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. Guy) on 3rd February.

TRUNK ROADS (SURVEY).

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Transport whether the work of surveying the trunk roads, now under the control of his Department, has been commenced; and how soon he will be able to put in hand the necessary reconstruction to bring them up to the proposed standard outlined in his statement to the House?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second, that the work of reconstruction is constantly proceeding.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement about to-morrow's business?

The Prime Minister: To-morrow will be the 5th allotted day in Committee of Supply, and the Vote of the Department for Mines will be put down. I understand that the Harworth colliery dispute is the subject to be debated.

Mr. Attlee: Having regard to the very grave issues raised in this connection, particularly dealing with the liberty of the subject and democracy, in which the right hon. Gentleman is specially interested, will he be able to make a statement to the House, so that we shall not have only a Departmental reply from the Secretary for Mines?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just put to me that question, of which I was not aware. I think we must wait to see how the Debate proceeds.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is something beyond a Departmental matter. It is a serious matter for the whole country.

The Prime Minister: I quite realise that, and I shall see that Cabinet Ministers are present during the Debate.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister with what object it is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule this evening?

The Prime Minister: We are proposing to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to conclude the Report stage and Third Reading of the Livestock Industry Bill. We made fair progress with the Bill yesterday, and I hope that the consideration of the remainder of the Report stage will not be unduly protracted. Afterwards, we should like to get the Third Reading, because we particularly desire to conclude all the stages of the Bill here, so that it may be sent to another place. We are also very anxious to get the second Order, which, I understand, is not contentious—the Report and Third Reading of the Diseases of Fish Bill.

Mr. Attlee: Bearing in mind the large number of Amendments and the importance of the discussion on the Livestock Industry Bill, and seeing also that there


has been no obstruction and that it deals with a very difficult problem, does not the Prime Minister agree that we ought not to embark on the Third Reading stage at a late hour—not after 10 o'clock?

The Prime Minister: We will wait and see. I still hope that we may get the Third Reading to-night.

Mr. Attlee: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that we do not enter on the Third Reading at an unduly late hour, when there is no opportunity for a full discussion.

The Prime Minister: I cannot: give any pledge at this moment, but it certainly is not my intention to ask the House to sit unduly late.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Prime Minister consider curtailing the holiday in order to get through the work of the House?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 120.

Division No. 182.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cox, H. B. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Critchley, A.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hulbert, N. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Crowder, J. F. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Joel, D. J. B.


Aske, Sir R. W.
De la Bère, R.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Assheton, R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Doland, G. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Donner, P. W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Drewe, C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Latham, Sir P.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Duggan, H. J.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Dunglass, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Ellis, Sir G.
Levy, T.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Elmley, Viscount
Lewis, O.


Bernays, R. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lindsay, K. M.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lloyd, G. W.


Blindell, Sir J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Furness, S. N.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Brass, Sir W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gluckstein, L. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
McKie, J. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Bull, B. B.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Magnay, T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Granville, E. L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Butler, R. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Guy, J. C. M.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Harbord, A.
Moreing, A. C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Channon, H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hepworth, J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Patrick, C. M.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Higgs, W. F.
Peake, O.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Petherick, M.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hopkinson, A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Pilkington, R.




Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Savery, Sir Servington
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Radford, E. A.
Selley, H. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ramsbotham, H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Turton, R. H.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wakefield, W. W.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Warrender, Sir V.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Watt, G. S. H.


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Somerset, T.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, S. R.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spens, W. P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


ROSS Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rowlands, G.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Salt, E. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Samuel, M. R. A.
Sutcliffe, H.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Thomas, J. P. L.
and Major Sir George Davies.


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Touche, G. C.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hardie, G. D.
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Holdsworth, H.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Banfield, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Rowson, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Batey, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Bromfield, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Horace Brimdon Trevor Cox, esquire, for the County of Chester (Stalybridge and Hyde Division).

BILL PRESENTED.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL,

"to make further and better provision with respect to the payment of superannuation

allowances and gratuities by local authorities and certain statutory undertakers, and with respect to the persons entitled to participate in the benefits of a local authority's superannuation fund or scheme, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by the Solicitor-General and Mr. R. S. Hudson; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Wandsworth and District Gas Bill,

Sheffield Corporation Bill,

Southern Railway Bill,

Great Western Railway Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to regulate the fumigation of premises and articles with hydrogen cyanide; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate and confer powers on the Sheppey Water Company; and for other purposes." [Sheppey Water Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the mayor aldermen and burgesses of the borough of Taunton to construct additional waterworks and to purchase land therefor; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with regard to their water undertaking; to make further provision with regard to the health local government and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Taunton Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision in regard to the undertaking of the Taf Fechan Water Supply Board; to confer further powers upon that Board and the constituent authorities thereof; and for other purposes." [Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Banbury Water Company to construct new works and raise additional capital; to alter the limits of supply of the Company; to confer further powers upon the Company; to empower them to acquire the undertaking of the Bloxham and District Water Company Limited; and for other purposes." [Banbury Waterworks Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Urban District Council of Coulsdon and Purley for and

in connection with the improvement health local government and finances of their district; to confer powers on the Council in relation to street trading; and for other purposes." [Coulsdon and Purley Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Ilford in regard to their electricity undertaking lands and other matters; to make further and better provision for the improvement health and local government of the borough; and for other purposes." [Ilford Corporation Bill [Lords.]

SHEPPEY WATER BILL [Lords],

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords],

TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL [Lords],

BANBURY WATERWORKS BILL [Lords],

COULSDON AND PURLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords,]

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on Re-commital) further considered.

CLAUSE 16.—(Matters for which provision may be made by livestock markets orders.)

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I beg to move, in page 13, line 19, to leave out paragraph (2).
As the Bill came down from the Standing Committee the fixing of the days and times for holding markets was to be controlled by livestock markets orders. In the Bill as it stands, in Clause 17 (1, c), similar provision can be made by by-law. On the whole we consider that it is undesirable that provision should be made for carrying out this one function by either of two separate methods. For that reason we propose to confine the fixing of days and times for holding markets to the markets by-laws procedure. The livestock market orders are, broadly speaking, intended to be mainly of a foundational character, for example, they will deal with the siting of markets, the planning, lay-out, equipment and so forth, whereas by-laws relate to matters of routine, such as the conduct and management of markets. The fixing of days and times for holding markets undoubtedly comes within the latter category. It is more suitable for by-laws and such a procedure would make administration much more convenient and flexible.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Of course we are all anxious that if the Bill is to be put into operation it should work as smoothly as possible and with as little irritation as possible, but I confess that I can hardly understand why this paragraph was allowed to remain in the Bill in Committee and why this procedure is now suddenly to be adopted. Indeed, I think I ought to draw attention to the fact that this Bill is practically being re-made, not in Committee but on Report. We are being asked to take the Report stage and Third Reading to-day, and I notice that there are 66 Government Amendments on the Paper. That is a very curious way of dealing with the House on a Bill of this kind. Nevertheless, if it is quite certain

that there is no really good purpose to be served by maintaining this provision for dealing with this class of arrangement by order, I should be prepared to raise no specific objection, but I cannot say that I am completely satisfied with the short and sketchy explanation made by the Minister of Pensions.

Mr. H. G. Williams: This subject is one on which I took a rather active part in Committee, and I think the Minister was frequently impressed by my hon. Friends and myself. He undertook to move Amendments on Report in order that the drafting might be satisfactory, instead of doing it hastily upstairs, and he properly decided to do it on Report. A great many of the Amendments are entirely of that character.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee and his followers on that Committee were led by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). This Amendment, I believe, has been moved in response to an Amendment which I moved in Committee on Clause 17. At that time the hon. Member for Don Valley said that for once he agreed with me and that he wanted the words that were in Clause 17 to be cut out. It is rather unfortunate that the Socialist party should now object to the Minister making an Amendment which he was invited to make in Committee.

Mr. Alexander: We have not objected.

Amendment agreed to.

4.7 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, to leave out "business as an auctioneer," and to insert:
'right to carry on the business of effecting sales by auction 
This Amendment, in common with most of those which stand on the Order Paper in my name, arises out of the proceedings in Committee. My hon. Friends the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) feared that some difficulty might arise over the use of the word "auctioneer," which was in the Bill as drafted. They feared that it might be represented in future as not to


apply to a firm of auctioneers. I considered these points and I now move this Amendment. There is no doubt that the Amendment and others of similar character which will be moved later make it clear beyond any doubt that a firm of auctioneers will be included. The Amendment refers to a person carrying on this business, but by Section 19 of the Interpretation Act of 1889 a person includes a firm of this character. The point will be made clearer by the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 25, leave out "business as auctioneers," and insert "the business of effecting sales by auction."

In line 27, after "area," insert "as may be specified in the order."

In line 27, leave out "can lawfully be used," and insert "are used or appropriated."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 14, line 29, to leave out "as may be specified in," and to insert:
and the occupiers of which are, in the opinion of the Commission, likely to benefit by the operation of.
This Clause relates to the power of the Commission to levy on market owners and auctioneers whose position is likely to be benefited by a livestock market order through the removal of competitors, and is to compensate those who may suffer loss or damage by the operation of an order. It is clear that a market geographically outside the area of a livestock market order might benefit every bit as much as a market which is geographically inside the area. So the Bill as originally drafted took power for the Commission to make a levy on a market of that character, even though it was outside the geographical area. The Bill proposed to leave the designation of such an outside market at large, but concern was expressed on this point in Committee and I promised to look into the matter. The words that I now propose leave the matter no longer at large, but require the Commission to satisfy itself that such an outside market will actually benefit from the operation of the order before a levy can be made upon the occupiers or auctioneers of the market

in question. The Third Schedule to the Bill gives such an outside market, if it is affected, the same right to object as have markets inside, and the provision as to arbitration and as to whether or not a market is liable and what sum it shall pay by way of contribution, is included also.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: This seems to be a reasonable principle, but before we pass it the House ought to know that it is proposed to widen the area in which it may be said that a market benefits. Will the Minister give us any idea as to what is the kind of radius of operation of the provision? These people who are interested now in these markets ought to have some general idea as to what is to happen. I do not think it would be reasonable to ask the Minister to lay down a sort of geographical radius which is to apply generally, but he ought to give us some idea as to what is the kind of area to be affected by the Bill.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty of specifying the area, and indeed it is not necessarily a matter of radius at all. It will depend upon the situation of the actual place, that is to say on the remoteness of the next market outside the area. It might be that if a livestock markets order were in operation inside a certain area and it closed some market on the edge of that area, then the market which would benefit by attracting the business diverted from the closed market, might be some considerable distance away. It would depend on whether there were intervening towns or markets. It was considerations of that sort which made me object to the test of radius as applicable to this question. The true test is, whether the market benefits by the operation of the order, and if it does benefit it ought to pay a levy to compensate those who lose. So we abandoned the test of actual radius and made our principle that if actually a market outside the area does benefit from the operation of the order, if it becomes a richer market, it ought to pay its fair share towards the compensation imposed by the order, with all the safeguards of arbitration and objection which are contained in the Bill.

Mr. Marshall: Here is a problem that might arise: I can imagine a state of things where a market is 10 miles beyond the area of the radius and owing to centralised slaughtering being brought into operation within the radius, that market might be very much injured. Can the Minister say what provision there is for payment of compensation in such a case?

Mr. Morrison: Any market that is at all injured by the operation of an order will have a right to compensation.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Richards: How is the right hon. Gentleman going to estimate the benefit that the new market has got as the result of some closing order? Is it merely to be the increase in the number of animals drafted to the market, or something of that kind? It frequently happens under the present orders of the Ministry with regard to swine fever or foot-and-mouth disease that when a particular market is closed another market, perhaps 20 miles away, benefits, that is to say the number of animals drafted to the other market is very considerably increased. Has the Minister in mind some definite standard for these markets, that is to say, if the number of cattle or pigs going to a market on a particular day is greater than it was formerly? Is that the kind of standard to be applied?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am glad that that question is not one that I have to answer. The scheme will lay down the principle upon which compensation is to be payable and the levy is to be made.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Riley: One appreciates the difficulty of fixing a radius, but does this mean that the Commission or the Advisory Committee will have the duty of making a survey of any market in the area which in their opinion will benefit under the scheme? Will they have the duty of investigating and exploring what is going to happen to the other markets, and will any contribution paid by these other markets go to a particular fund to meet the losses of markets which have been closed?

Mr. Morrison: That is the position exactly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 41, leave out "business as an auctioneer," and insert "the business of effecting sales by auction."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Livestock markets by-laws.)

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, after "Commission," to insert:
if they consider it desirable so to do for promoting efficiency or economy in the marketing of livestock.
This is a drafting Amendment, to bring into the preamble of the Clause the words providing for the consideration of efficiency or economy which at present occur later in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 15, line 32, leave out "auctioneers," and insert "persons."

In line 39, leave out from "premises," to "and," in line 4z.—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

4.18 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 16, line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to the first "for," in line 5.
This is another point that arises out of an undertaking which I gave in Committee. Sub-section (1, c) of Clause 17 gives power to the Commission to make by-laws for ensuring that lack of efficiency shall not exist by reason of the fact that two markets are held on the same day and at the same time. This is another point which I owe to the vigilance of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who pointed out that an unnecessary restriction would be imposed on the powers of the Commission in this regard. It is possible for efficiency to be affected by an approach of days and times less close than an actual coincidence; that is to say, if one market were meeting at 3 o'clock in the afternoon and another at 4 o'clock, they would not be meeting at the same time, but nevertheless their operations might so conflict that it would be necessary to make a by-law altering the days and times. The Amendment is designed to meet that point by omitting the restriction as to the same day and the same time, leaving the Commission governed, as they are now, by the binding words as to consideration of


efficiency and economy, which, by the Amendment just moved by my hon. Friend, have been transferred to the beginning of the Clause, so that the Commission will be able to make by-laws without any regard to an actual coincidence of times.

Amendment agreed to.

4.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, in page 16, line 21, after "premises," to insert "throughout Great Britain or in any part thereof."
This is a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that general by-laws may be made applying to premises in particular parts of Great Britain, and not necessarily to the whole of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, leave out lines 28 to 33.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

4.22 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I beg to move, in page 16, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(4) When the Commission first decide that livestock market by-laws are desirable in relation to any premises generally or to any class of premises in any area, they shall forthwith serve a written notice of their decision (specifying the said area and the premises or class of premises to which it is proposed such by-laws shall relate and the general nature of the said by-laws) on such bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of local authorities and other interests likely to be affected by the by-laws, and shall give those bodies a reasonable opportunity of making to the Commission representations with respect to the provisions to be inserted in and the drafting of the said proposed by-laws; and the Commission shall, in settling the terms in which the draft by-laws shall be published in accordance with paragraph one of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, take into consideration any such representations as aforesaid which may have been made to them by the said bodies and also consult the Livestock Advisory Committee.
This Amendment, like the Amendment to Clause 15 which was moved by the Minister last night, is designed to make it clear that consultation between the Commissioners and the parties affected by livestock markets by-laws shall precede any drafting by the Commission. The proposed new Sub-section is drawn in almost precisely similar fashion to the Minister's Amendment last night, the only difference being that it refers to livestock

markets by-laws and not to livestock markets orders.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me that consultation will be even more important in this case, because the by-laws will concern all sorts of matters of detail, and I think it would be of enormous advantage to the Commission to obtain the views of those who are experts on such matters of detail before they commence their drafting.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This Amendment would apply to livestock markets by-laws the same initial procedure that is now to be applied to livestock markets orders. I can see the logical framework in which it is conceived, but I would ask my hon. Friends to consider whether in this case the procedure is appropriate to the subject-matter of a by-law. The proposed procedure of preliminary discussion before the by-law is in draft is taken, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, from my Amendment referring to livestock markets orders, but I think that the present Amendment is unnecessary. A livestock markets by-law is quite a different thing from a livestock markets order. The livestock markets order is, as my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions said just now, of a foundational character. It affects interests and localities over a wide area, and there is an argument, which has convinced me, for saying that, in the case of an order of that character, it is essential to put into the Bill words which will secure preliminary consultation with the interests affected, so that the Livestock Commission can get a picture of the whole thing in their minds before they put pen to paper. That was the object of the Amendment which was accepted last night.
A livestock markets by-law, however, is entirely different. It deals with details of management. There must be preliminary consultation before the idea of a by-law can ever get into the minds of the Commission. Where do they get their information as to whether or not a bylaw is advisable? Surely, they can only get it from the locality affected. It is only those in the actual market which will be affected who will know where the shoe pinches, and can inform the Commission of their needs and desires in


the matter. The movement for a by-law is bound to start from the locality to which it is to apply. A livestock markets order, on the other hand, has a very much wider scope. There is no reason why the somewhat cumbrous procedure which is applicable to an order should be used in the case of a by-law. A by-law is, after all, a matter of words. It is legislation of a very minor character. It can only be judged on its text. We have often in this House, in considering proposals made in a general fashion, wished that we could clarify the situation in our own minds by seeing it in a Bill, so that we should know where we were. In considering a livestock markets by-law, it is the text that matters, and the discussion between the people concerned can take place more valuably after they have had the text before them. I hope my hon. Friends will agree with me that in this matter it is not necessary for the Commission to go through quite the same involved procedure that is laid down for a livestock markets order. Let the Commission put their by-law in draft first. They are bound to consult with the local people, and, if there is opposition to the wording of the by-law, the discussion can be most usefully carried on at that stage.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: The Minister has given a very reasonable sort of explanation of his attitude, but this is a case in which a commission, and not a local authority, is going to make a by-law. It is true, as the Minister says, that they would hardly proceed to put pen to paper until there had been some initiative from the people interested in the matter, that it must also be remembered that, in the kind of local disputes and discussions which arise in such circumstances, the Commission may well be approached by only one section of the parties concerned in order to initiate by-laws which may be very restrictive upon other parties interested in the market. I think there is something to be said for the view of those responsible for this Amendment that a good deal of irritation and bad feeling might well be avoided if, instead of proceeding to put into draft a by-law made on the representations of only one section of the parties concerned, arrangements were made for adequate consultation. It may well be that, without some provision of this kind, draft bylaws might be published which would give

rise to even more irritation to the other parties concerned than to the people who actually took the initiative with the Commission.

4.30 p.m.

Major Dorman-Smith: Are we to take it that the Commission could not issue a set of by-laws which would have general application, but must take each market by itself—that, for instance, they would not be able to lay down that all markets must use a particular kind of weighbridge, or something of that sort? If they were able to do that, it might be rather annoying. Are we to take it that they will have to treat each market as a separate problem?

Mr. Morrison: No, they can make general by-laws or special by-laws. This is provided for in Sub-section (3) of the Clause, which reads as follows:
Livestock markets by-laws may be either general by-laws, that is to say, by-laws applying to premises generally or to any class of premises throughout Great Britain or in any part thereof, or special by-laws, that is to say, by-laws applying to particular premises only; and any livestock markets by-laws (whether general or special) may be made so as to apply in relation to a specified description of livestock only, and may make different provision with respect to different descriptions of livestock.
They may be of general as well as of special application. This is not a point on which I feel very strongly. My desire is to avoid overweighting the Bill with provisions which I do not think are necessary. However, my mind is not closed on the subject. I cannot see that the Amendment will do a great deal of harm except for overweighting the Bill. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to consider it further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 20.—(Provisions for limiting rents and other charges in respect of market premises.)

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 18, line 12, to leave out "undue."
This Clause was the subject of long deliberation in Committee, and it is one of those Clauses which have changed a great deal in their passage through the House. As originally introduced, the Commission were entitled to make a survey and they could alter any rent or toll that they liked. The Minister has devised a new method in order to stop


the work of the Livestock Commission being too cumbrous and he has given us this new proviso which, however, only enables the Commission to act when the rent or toll is not only increased but increased unduly. In the Committee, drawing attention to what would happen when market premises had received a monopoly under the terms of the Bill, he said it would be quite wrong for them to increase their charges because the Commission had given them a monopoly. I share the Minister's view in that, and I think this part of the Bill will be very unpopular should it lead to any increase of market rent and toll charges. Why should a livestock market be able to take advantage of the monopoly that we are granting them? Why should those who send their cattle to market have their charges raised? I do not think this is a very large concession to ask for.

Major Hills: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think that the omission of this word would in practice make a very great difference. On the other hand, if it were omitted, the significance of the Clause might not be appreciated to the full. For instance, it enables the Commission to make an order limiting the charges that may be made by a market owner to any person using the premises—an auctioneer for example—but they cannot make an order of the kind unless they are satisfied that it is necessary to prevent persons who may have an interest in the premises taking undue ad vantage of the position as the result of the regulation of the market. It is possible that in the lapse of time an increase of rent might be reasonably made, or the owner might make improvements to the premises. He must not take undue advantage but, on the other hand, you cannot say that in no circumstances can an increase in rent be justified. I do not think there is a great deal in the point and it does not make arty very great practical difference, but in order to emphasise the significance of it, I think it is as well to leave the words as they are.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I should like to support the Minister on this point. The whole inception of this part of the scheme is that certain people are to take some advantage because, if they are not, why

under Clause 16 (6) are we going to levy on them because of the advantage that they have had from the Act? The whole conception is that there will be some increase in the volume of their trade. The word "undue" implies that, if they profiteer—to use the current phrase of the day—they are wrong, but if they get a normal increase of business as the result of this, it is what is expected and what the Bill is for.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 23.—(Control of slaughtering in connection with experimental operation of central slaughter-houses.)

4.37 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I beg to move, in page 20, line 6, at the end, to insert:
none of which shall he in an area the population of which over a radius of 10 miles from the central slaughter-house is less than two hundred and sixty thousand.
This refers to the proposed central slaughter-houses. The Amendment arises out of words used by the Minister of Pensions in Committee. A discussion was taking place on the extent or radius of the zone which would lie round the central slaughter-house and the Minister said:
Twelve might be a proper limit in a consumer area where the centres of population are dense. It might, on the other hand, he a narrow limit in a producer area, where the object is to have a wide radius from which to draw supplies for the factory.
When heckled on the subject he replied:
It is perfectly possible that one may be in a producer area and two in a consumer area, or the other way about. I do not know."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 18th March, 1937, col. 588.]
The object of the Amendment is to ascertain the Minister's intentions as to whether he is going to have all these experimental slaughter-houses in consumer areas or whether he intends to put one in a producer area. So far all the opinion of the experts who have been called into consultation is against putting them in a producer area. There was a special committee set up by the Ministry of Agriculture which said that the ideal standard meat factory demanded a concentrated population of 260,000 people to consume the output. There are 12 towns with a population of over 260,000 and some of them have no slaughter-houses. The conclusion of the De La Warr Report was almost entirely against putting these slaughter-houses in producer areas. For


one thing, except from Aberdeen, the freight on livestock to London was less than the freight for meat. Again, if you put them in a producer area, you are up against this difficulty, that production in producer areas is largely seasonal. You get stall-fed beasts in Norfolk corning on the market at one time, and you get grass-fed beasts in the Midlands coming on the market at another time.
Another argument which the De La Warr Report put forward is that edible offals deteriorate greatly on long journeys and, if you have it in a producer area, you are up against this, that there will be the double cost of consigning a large number of beasts to the slaughter-house and then sending them on as meat again to the consuming areas. Again, the De La Wan Committee urged that they ought to be put in consumer areas because consumption per square mile in a consumer area was greater than the production per square mile in a producer area. I move this in the hope that the Minister will accept it and will stick to the advice of the experts which his own Ministry set up, and will once and for all abolish the idea that any of these slaughterhouses will be situated in a producer area.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: My hon. and gallant Friend says that his purpose in moving the Amendment is to extract from the Minister some idea of where he is going to put these experimental slaughterhouses. I should have thought, after all the attempts that were made to do that in Committee he would by now have been getting a little discouraged. It was pointed out in Committee that central slaughter-house schemes are not, like marketing orders, initiated by the Commission. They entirely depend on applications from local authorities or local interests which feel that it would be an advantage to their area to have a slaughter-house scheme in it. The Commission does not go round trying to impose a scheme on an area which does not want it. We anticipate that there will be considerably more than three areas from which applications for schemes of this kind will be made, and that the Commission will, perhaps, have some

difficulty in deciding for what area they will make a scheme to be submitted to the Minister.
It would clearly be unreasonable to expect my right hon. Friend to say now in what kind of area he expects a scheme to be made, or which of the competing areas will be selected. It is the kind of question that the Commission, surely, must judge in the light of local representations that are made. My hon. and gallant Friend, I think, will forgive me if I do not go into the reports that he has quoted, for that reason. It is a matter for the Commission to decide, but his Amendment would positively exclude one area where we have some reason to think the inhabitants are anxious to have an experimental scheme, and that is Aberdeenshire. The terms of the Amendment would make it impossible for a central slaughterhouse scheme to be established there. That subject was very fully discussed in Committee on various Amendments and by my right hon. Friend, who went fully into the matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." The Committee accepted the view that we ought not to try to restrict or to tie the hands of the Commission in this way, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not think it necessary to press the Amendment on Report.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: Are we to take it from the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that Aberdeen is to have one of these slaughter-houses? He will remember that the Minister of Agriculture was subjected to a good deal of examination on this point, and he assured the Committee that the Commissioners would be entirely free in their choice. It is desirable that we should have it made perfectly plain that Aberdeen, because of the power of Scottish interests with the Minister of Agriculture, has not already established a prior claim.

Mr. Wedderburn: I only gave Aberdeen as an illustration of an area which would be prevented from competing by the Amendment.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Now that the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) is being repulsed by the Minister, perhaps he will begin to appreciate that almost every vote


he gave on Clause 20 and other Clauses up to Clause 30 was cast in the wrong direction. Particularly is that so in regard to the fundamental Amendment which we submitted to the Committee and which was rejected by the Minister. We argued that these three experimental slaughterhouses ought to be nationally owned and nationally run, since they were going to supply the whole country with the information required for the purpose of developing the slaughtering system in the future. As the Committee proceeded with its deliberations and hon. Members submitted Amendments, wanting this information to be provided, with limitations and so forth, almost every argument that was advanced went to prove the justification for the Amendment that we had originally moved, which was rejected by the Minister.
The suggested 10 miles radius can be viewed from two angles. The Commission may examine an area and provoke someone into activity to produce a scheme with the Commission either for a producer area or an industrial area. Now that the schemes are to be owned by one local authority, or a combination of local authorities, or private individuals, or utility societies, wherever they feel disposed to establish an experimental slaughter-house, if they can secure the assent of the Commission and the Minister, they can do it. That would not have been possible if the central slaughter-house scheme had been a national one, because the slaughterhouses would have been set up in the most appropriate spots in which to carry through the experiment, and the nation would have benefited as the result of the £350,000 of Treasury money which is to be contributed towards it. Now the hon. and gallant Member realises that anybody who wants to establish a central slaughterhouse scheme by getting to the Commission's early doors and obtaining the assent of the Commission and ultimately of the Minister, can have a scheme either in a producer or a consumer area. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will feel the error of his ways in the Committee stage. I am satisfied that the Ministry are doing right in rejecting the Amendment.
There is one further point. The Commission is to consist of eight persons, who are to be appointed by the Ministers. The Ministers are three Scotsmen—the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for

Scotland, and the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Turton: What about the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Williams: I suppose that if there is any decent job going it will be held by a Scotsman. The three Scotsmen will appoint the eight Commissioners. Let us assume that they will exercise some sound judgment. The Commission in their wisdom ought not in any case to establish, and I do not think they will establish a central slaughter-house scheme in any part of the country where it is likely to become uneconomic. In Clause 28 the Minister is taking power to revoke any central slaughter-house scheme, brought into existence at a cost of many hundreds of thousands of pounds towards which they may have contributed £50,000, if it proves to be uneconomic after a fair experience. The fact that he is taking power to revoke a scheme ought to encourage him to be extremely careful before he accepts an area or a scheme in any part of the country, even Aberdeen. I am convinced that if the central experimental slaughter-houses had been nationally owned and nationally run the House need not have worried about the areas in the country where they are to be established, because they would have set out to avoid the necessity of bringing Clause 28 into being for the purpose of revoking a scheme which they themselves had promoted.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I am not going to discuss whether these slaughter-houses ought to be nationally owned or owned by individuals, but I am going to apply my mind to the Amendment. I am sorry that the Minister has not given some indication of his purpose in regard to these central slaughter-houses. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment that there are good and sound considerations why these places should be situated in the great consuming areas. The Bill confers many benefits on the farming industry, and to place these slaughter-houses in the producing areas would confer another great benefit upon the farming industry, to which I am not prepared to give my assent. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment put forward considerations


why he thought the slaughter-houses ought to be placed in the producing areas, and I will add one or two more.
In the first place, I think the great consuming areas have a right to be considered favourably. If there has been any development in the slaughtering of livestock in this country during the last generation or so it has been due to the enterprise and vigour and the tremendous amount of money that the consuming areas have invested in this industry. I know of no case where the producing areas have benefited the industry in the same sense that the consuming areas have done. I could mention various towns which have spent an enormous amount of money for the development and improvement of slaughtering, and if the Minister contemplates going away from these areas and compelling the great industrial areas to go perhaps 50 miles to purchase their food from a producing area, this Bill will be the last thing in futility.
Let us assume that one of these slaughter-houses is placed in a producing area. There will be an enormous number of animals slaughtered there. One of the interests that I have at heart is the humane slaughtering of animals, and I contend that we can far better effect that very benign purpose by taking advantage of the splendid facilities of the local authorities as to inspection and things of that character, than is available in a producing area. The slaughtering of animals should be done as near a great consuming area as possible, because it is in those areas that the market exists for the sale and consumption of the goods. Imagine Sheffield, Liverpool, or any other great local authority having to go scores of miles to the wholesale meat market which I assume will be attached to these slaughter-houses, in order to purchase its meat. That is very far from what is desirable.
I am sorry that the Minister has not given some indication of his intentions. I do not envy him his task. Many local authorities will be clamouring that they should be the most favoured authority under this Clause. If the Minister had adopted a firm attitude and said that in the interests of the industry and of the great consuming areas, and consequently in the interests of the livestock industry,

these experimental places would be established in the consuming areas, he would have done a great deal to clarify our minds and make an ambiguous part of the Bill clearer.

4.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: The hon. Member opposite is very anxious that these slaughter-houses should be placed in consuming and not in producing areas. I think that many people who live in producing areas will fully agree with him. I do not want one of these places in the area in which I live. I am sorry that the Minister has not given us more indication of his intention. We do not know where the slaughter-houses are to be placed or what they are to do. I will make one more attempt to get the Minister to explain what he expects the slaughter-houses to do. We want to know where they are to be placed. When the butcher goes to the market will he have to take his animals, five, 10, or 15 miles to the slaughter-houses, and have them slaughtered and then take them back again to his shop? Or are the slaughterhouses to go into the consumer areas where the animals will be slaughtered and sold to the butcher? If they have to go to the market themselves and buy the beasts, that will eventually ruin the market, because there will be no competition.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: If I have not come forward with information as to where the slaughter-houses are to be situated, I would ask hon. Members to believe that my secrecy has not been because I did not want to give all information in my power, but because it would be improper for me to make any suggestion on the subject at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will give the reason. I am asking the House to set up a Commission for the purpose of reviewing the situation and making a decision. They will have various proposals before them, and they will have to deal with the proposals on their merits. It would be against the interests of the Commission and of this experiment if I were at this stage to make any pronouncement in advance of receiving the report of this very body which is being set up to advise us.

Mr. Riley: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what the considerations are?

Mr. Morrison: I am proceeding to that point. Hon. Members have drawn attention to various disqualifications of certain areas. I have not the least doubt that those weighty arguments will be before the Commission, and they will be in my mind when I have to approve the scheme. Let me say a few words about Aberdeen. There is no intention to say here and now that Aberdeen is to have one of these slaughter-houses. Nothing of the kind. Aberdeen has come into the discussion in a way which I ought to make plain. The hon. Member opposite spoke of the desirability of having slaughter-houses in a consuming centre and adduced many arguments in favour of his contention. It must not be forgotten—and it has been frequently urged upon me—that the central slaughterhouse idea had its origin in exporting districts; that is to say, it is in the South American exporting districts that this particular technique has been developed. Aberdeen is one of the biggest exporting districts in this country. It has an immense long-range trade with London in meat, not in cattle, and it is in that way that Aberdeen has been brought into the discussion, because it is an exporting district of that character. The proper procedure which I have indicated and which I have advised the House to adopt is to set up this body and not to prejudge any of the decisions which it has to make in advance of its coming into existence. They are very complicated matters which the Commission will have to investigate, and every scheme will, no doubt, have good and bad points about it. Let the Commission, when it comes into being, consider each application on its merits.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the functions of these central slaughter-houses?

Mr. Morrison: I have replied to that point several times. The function of the central slaughter-house is not to buy cattle at all. Its function is to do what any slaughter-house does at the present moment, and it will do it, I hope, a great deal better. The butcher, instead of slaughtering his own cattle in his own back yard or premises, may have, if he lives in the area of one of these schemes, the opportunity of taking his beasts to one of these new modern slaughter-houses and getting them treated by these new methods. It is a supply service. That

is the key-note of the whole proposal. It is not a trading concern.

Captain Heilgers: In view of what the Minister has said and the reasonable explanation he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 24.—(Matters for which provision may be made by slaughter-house schemes.)

5.3 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I beg to move, in page 20, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no existing firm of importers of meat shall be the person or persons carrying on the central slaughter-house.
I move this Amendment in order to ensure that in this experiment in central slaughtering there will be no control, direct or indirect, by the meat importing firms in the slaughter-houses. As the House knows, there are four or five great meat importing firms to-day, and these meat importing firms have a complete grip of the London market. Seventy-five per cent, of the meat that is eaten in London comes from overseas sources. The situation is, I admit, better so far as home producers are concerned when you get further North, but by their hold in Smithfield these importing firms, which are almost entirely composed of foreign interests, have a dominating influence over the meat trade throughout the country. We are endeavouring by these experiments in central slaughtering to get a higher standard of home production. We are trying to eliminate unnecessary overhead costs. I think that the last thing that these importing firms will welcome is to see the competing home production much on the same lines as those on which they are endeavouring to put overseas meat before the public. These firms have unlimited capital at their disposal. They have in the past conducted meat wars absolutely ruthlessly, and I have no doubt that they will endeavour, by hook or by crook, to gain control of these new central slaughter-houses. I am asking the Minister in this Amendment, therefore, to make sure that these experiments to which we give our support shall be entirely free from the influence or participation of these firms.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to second this Amendment, to which I attach very considerable importance. It is not merely


a question of these importers obtaining a monopoly by their own efforts. As a result of the Ottawa Agreements they are now licensed importers, and as a result of that no new person can come into the business. They have not only got a monopoly which has been built up by their own vast financial resources, they have virtually got a statutory monopoly. That these people, who have a monopoly of sale in this country of imported meat, should be able to obtain a monopoly in respect of home-grown meat, would be a most disastrous proceeding. I am not complaining of trusts and combines, provided the law of supply and demand can operate and they can be eliminated where they are found to be redundant. When you have a device by which they cannot be eliminated, they ought not to be allowed to take control of the slaughtering in one of the wide areas under this scheme. Although on two previous occasions my hon. and gallant Friend has begged leave to withdraw Amendments I hope that he will not do so on this occasion, if the Minister is unwilling to accept the Amendment. I am sure he will accept it, however, because he is such a reasonable person. There can be no question as to what an importer is. It is a perfectly well known thing to the law, although it might at one time have been a vague phrase.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) will not carry into execution his desire to push this Amendment to the extreme. It would not effect the purpose which he and my hon. and gallant Friend have in view. They have talked about the resources and powers and dark ways of the meat importing firms, but it does not require a great deal of ingenuity even for a common person, quite apart from a person endowed with these resources, to evade the provisions of such an Amendment. Supposing I were to accept the Amendment, it would only be necessary for such a firm to form a subsidiary company, call it if you like, "The Central Slaughter-Houses Company, Limited," formed of different persons, and it would not be at all affected by this Amendment.

Mr. H. G. Williams: As these Commissioners would have to approve these

people, I am going to assure that the Commissioners would be intelligent persons who would not have the law side-stepped by such a device.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is scarcely logical when he admits that the Amendment would have no effect in preventing such devices and in saying then that surely the Commissioners as reasonable men would take into account the merits of the situation, and look behind the legal position. I think the Commissioners will judge a case on its merits whether or not this Amendment is carried. I have urged the House to abide by the principle of a fair field and no favour. Let us get all the schemes and proposals we can from every source, examine them upon their merits, look for their demerits where they are to be found, and then both the Commission and the Ministers who are responsible, and Parliament itself, can express their views. I feel that to start excluding persons at this stage is narrowing the field of persons who may make proposals, and I think that will be a mistake, especially as the proposal here would not have the desired effect. I think the proper course is to let people compete with one another. All considerations will be borne in mind, and the House will have an opportunity in the last resort of expressing its views on any particular scheme.

5.12 p.m.

Major Hills: Whatever may be said of the words proposed by my hon. Friend, I believe the House on both sides realises that there is a danger here which those words are intended to meet. This Bill is designed to increase the production of home-grown beef. The more home-grown beef that is produced, the cheaper will beef both imported and home-fed be to the consumer. Against the production of the home-bred article, we have a body of very powerful and highly organised and wealthy importers. I do not wish to say anything in derogation of them, but their whole interest is to increase the imports of beef into this country, because on the imports of beef depend their profits. Ought they to be allowed to control to a serious extent the local production of British-fed and British-killed beef? I am certain, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, that he agrees with the objection that was raised by the Mover of the Amendment. I do not think the


hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) would object to what I am saying. He, equally with myself, wants to increase the productivity of our farms. Would it be a good thing—indeed would it not be a very bad thing?—if it was to the interest of a powerful and highly developed organisation to reduce the productivity of our farms? If they could do it they would, and under the ordinary competitive system under which we live they are entitled to do it.
Would not these words be some guidance to the Commission? I quite agree that there is machinery, such as the formation of a subsidiary company and that sort of device, which might evade the object of an Amendment like this, but would it not be a good thing to have some words in here to show that the slaughter-house ought to be at the disposal entirely of the home farmer, rather than be used for other purposes? The Minister has said he does not see his way to accept these words. Will he between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place consider whether something cannot be done? I do not ask for anything unreasonable. All that I want is to secure that powerful interests who control the imports of beef should not be enabled to use undue means to restrict the sale of the home-produced commodity.

5.15 p.m.

Major Dorman-Smith: I would be in very great sympathy with the Amendment if, in fact, it were possible for the importing concerns, through the central slaughter-houses, to get any control at all of our meat supplies. These slaughterhouses are merely for slaughtering and not for processing at all. They are not to be great distributing centres, and I do not see how it could really benefit the importing firms to take over control, or to try to get control of these slaughterhouses by some ulterior motive. If they were to be distributing centres for beef, they might so arrange matters that beef would be sent out in bad condition and so on and so bring British beef into disrepute. I do not see how these slaughter-houses, as they are at the present moment intended, could be used for any nefarious purpose whatever. If the butchers and those to whom the beasts belong find that the arrangements in the slaughter-houses are bad and that

they are not getting proper service from the slaughter-houses, they can appeal to the Commission, to the Minister and to this House, and the Minister has the power to bring the experiment to an end. I do not think that there can be any danger, in this particular Clause, that the importers are going to hurt us. If I thought that they could do so to any degree I would be whole-heartedly in favour of the Amendment, but I do not think that that is possible.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to get in a word or two on this Amendment before it is withdrawn. It is obvious that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has already made preparation for proceeding upon a wrong assumption. He makes the first assumption that the Minister is a reasonable man, though I do not know upon what basis he forms that assumption, and he makes the more absurd assumption that the Commissioners will be intelligent men. It is quite obvious that an hon. Member who can make use of such loose and unjustifiable language is only putting down Amendments for the sake of wasting the time of this House. So we get the situation that one Amendment after another is discussed and then withdrawn, but it is very necessary to direct attention to the character of this Amendment and what it shows to us. We have, according to the Movers of the Amendment, very wealthy and powerful interests in this country prepared to use their power to destroy the farming interests of this country. It is a very serious charge to make, and I agree that it is justified. We have had many parts of the country already destroyed by those who are concerned only with profits, but when the other side come forward and discuss the areas destroyed by those whose only concern is profit, we have all kinds of sob-stuff. Powerful interests and wealthy corporations have only one concern, namely, to maintain their profits, and they will try to get control over the new institutions, not to develop or to use them in the best interests of the country or of the farming industry, but to destroy the farming industry.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) asked whether the Minister will not agree that some words are needed. Some words are needed, and


they should be that any wealthy interests interfering in any way with this scheme should immediately be prosecuted and thrown into gaol. It is all right to say that the number would be small, but when destruction is deliberately conceived and prepared for in order to keep up profits, gaol is the best place for those concerned. These words should be put in, but it is obvious that the only solution of this question is the one put from the Front Bench and referred to already by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). Not only should there be no opportunity for these selfish, greedy, brutal and murderous self-interests to interfere with the rights of the people of this country, but we must see that, when these institutions are set up, they are put under proper control so that none of these people can have any say in the matter and there shall not be the possibility of carrying out sabotage, because that is a thing which is openly discussed here. These men are prepared to sabotage. Do not give the opportunity to any of them. Make these places of public service so that there shall be no danger to the public, or to the farmers of the country, who are concerned with the rearing of cattle.

Amendment negatived.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 21, line 4, to leave out from "area," to "except," in line 6.
This Amendment is introductory to or consequential upon the one which follows, to leave out paragraph (d), and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I deal with them both together, because there is no substance in the first Amendment beyond its introductory character. Paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of the Clause provides that a slaughter-house scheme may make provision for exempting any premises in the area of the scheme from the need for approval by the Commission if and so long as the output from those premises does not exceed the average of the output in the corresponding preceding quarters. This part of the Clause came in for a great deal of criticism in Committee, and it was very valuable criticism indeed. I have considered it, and have come to the conclusion that the wording of paragraph (d) is really too rigid. As it stands in the Bill at the present moment, it would

mean that, once premises were specified in a scheme, no allowance could be made for changing conditions except by amending the actual scheme, and also, provisions for averaging the output would give rise to very considerable difficulties owing to the variations which take place in the composition and size of the output of small slaughter-houses. Smaller premises are not so well equipped as the larger ones, and I believe that the averaging proposal might give rise to a great deal of difficulty, and also, as was pointed out in Committee, while it might be sufficient to maintain the output of certain premises at recent levels, the effect on an expanding business of the averaging provision under paragraph (d) might actually be restrictive by reducing the output of a certain slaughter-house.
What I now propose to the Committee in the Amendment and the one that succeeds it is to delete paragraph (d) entirely. The general purpose for which it was originally intended was to permit the Commission to prescribe a standstill Order in parts of the area of the scheme more remote from the slaughter-house. The intention can equally well be achieved in paragraph (c) as it stands. I think that hon. Members will agree with me that the powers in that paragraph are quite sufficient to give the Commission all the control required for the success of the scheme. It will enable the Commission to approve premises and to give directions relating to the improved premises as will permit the volume of slaughtering at those premises to continue at its customary level, or to extend a little, if that were possible within certain limits. The Commission will also be enabled—and it is desirable that they should—to vary at any time their directions or to withdraw approval, subject always to the compensation provisions which apply if any loss or damage is sustained.
The purpose of the Amendment is to maintain control over premises in a slightly different way from what was first intended. It was intended to have control by areas; to create a special area in which certain results or restrictions would follow. It is much simpler to have control by premises and not by area, and the people affected in any area will know where they stand. The practical difficulties found by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr.
H. G. Williams), of averaging, to which I have given more thought since the discussion, will be entirely eliminated.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I agree with the Minister as to the rigidity of paragraph (d), but, on the other hand, I must shed a tear at its passing because another of our safeguards is to be taken away. Throughout the whole of the stages of the Bill there is one class of slaughter-house that I have felt ought to be specifically mentioned in the Bill. When I failed to obtain that degree of security for bacon factories, I hoped that they would be covered by paragraph (d), where there was given exemption for businesses already established. Although I agree that the rigidity might be very hard, I hope that the Minister, as he is taking out paragraph (d) will, in another place, deal with the special position of bacon factories, and realise that by taking out paragraph (d) he is affecting their case very harshly. At great sacrifice and over long periods of time, some of us have fought in order to get bacon factories established in our areas, and if it should come about by chance that a central slaughter-house scheme is established in an area where there is a bacon factory, as this Clause will leave the House to-day, that bacon factory must go unless the Commission approve of it.
There is, therefore, uncertainty. It means that those who represent bacon factories will have to pester the Commission in order to get their claims considered. There is no reason at all why a bacon factory which is making a specialised produce should be closed because a central slaughter-house scheme is going to be put into operation. There is no proposal that a central slaughter-house scheme should be turned into a bacon factory. Surely the simplest way is for the Minister to replace paragraph (d) in another place with a special Clause dealing with bacon factories.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: While I am anxious to secure the position of bacon factories I do not suffer the qualms which the hon. Member appears to be suffering in this matter. After all, the bacon scheme now will depend not so much on the Bill as on the action which will be taken by the Bacon Development Board. I cannot believe that an impartial Commission

under the Bill would operate in respect of bacon factories without collaboration with the Bacon Development Board. That is the kind of answer which I should imagine the Minister would give; certainly from my point of view that is the view I should take on this particular question. On the other hand, the action of the Minister in deleting paragraph (d) appeals to me on general grounds. I agree that it takes away a good deal of the rigidity which might be very hampering in the working of the schemes in the future and, therefore, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, we shall support the proposal.

5.33 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I agree with the right hon. Member opposite, as far as bacon factories are concerned. In a way we suffer from the action of bacon factories in Lincolnshire, and at the same time we are a centre of production. One of the things which stand in the way is the fact that there are so many of these old bacon factories which are protected and cannot be abolished. If the deletion of the paragraph will help to put this position right I shall be glad to support it. At the same time, I do not think the proposal will make very much difference, although it will help in the smooth working of the scheme. In the past we have suffered from legislation which has been too rigid, and I think that on the whole the Minister is justified in taking out the paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

5.35 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 22, to leave out lines 5 to 14.
I am moving the Amendment in order to obtain some information as to the intentions of the Government in regard to compensating owners of slaughter-houses which may be put out of action as a result of the establishment of a central slaughter-house. There are about 16,000 slaughter-houses in the country, large and small. The report of the Commission which was set up to look into the question of slaughtering gave us all the information we required as to the need for a great transformation in the slaughter-house system in this country. We have two


kinds of slaughter-houses—the registered slaughter-house and the licensed slaughter-house. The licensed slaughter-house receives its licence from a local authority annually. Any year a local authority can refuse a licence without paying any compensation. I understand that when a local authority proposes to establish a central slaughterhouse and comes to this Parliament for powers it is not called upon to compensate licensed slaughter-houses; they just go out of existence. But this Sub-section fails to discriminate between a registered slaughter-house and a licensed slaughterhouse, and I want to know whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to compensate the owners of slaughterhouses whether they happen to be licensed or registered.
We had a long Debate on compensating workmen who lose their jobs as a result of a marketing scheme. The Minister refused any compensation for the man who was dismissed and lost his job and his wages; and we want to know whether a licensed slaughter-house owner is to be compensated under the terms of the Bill. If we learn that it is the intention that only a registered slaughter-house owner shall be compensated, we might hesitate before forcing the Amendment to a Division.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member will realise that these are provisions for the schemes, and that I cannot prejudge the matter in advance, because each scheme will be considered on its merits. You may have local differences. There is a great deal of difference in the treatment meted out in various private Acts in this matter. In general it is true that in private Bills, which give local authorities power to close down slaughter-houses, only the registered ones are compensated and licensed slaughter-houses are not. There is also a condition of affairs in Scotland where no compensation at all is paid. There is a general Act in Scotland, the Burgh Police Act, which gives a general power to local authorities to erect central slaughter-houses, and upon their erection all other slaughter-houses in the area of the municipality simply become unlawful. While I appreciate the point the hon. Member has made, and I am obliged to him for raising it, the only answer I can give at the moment is that,

having regard to the wide variations in localities, it will be a matter for discussion later on as to the principles upon which compensation shall be paid. We should try certainly to achieve uniform treatment in the matter, but local conditions are so varied and the provisions in a large number of private Acts are so varied, that I cannot give him an exact answer which would fit all the conditions in the localities that may be concerned.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I see a grave danger in this matter. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that conditions do vary in towns, but on the whole it is the generally accepted principle that licensed slaughter-houses are not compensated, and if the words remain in the Bill without any qualification whatever we are going to be dependent on the scheme itself to decide whether compnsation shall be paid in all cases or only in the case of registered slaughterhouses. It is dangerous to allow the Bill to go through in its present form. Could not the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment, say at the end of line 14, to insert the words, "any registered slaughter-house." That would cover the point, and should there be any doubt in any individual case in any area the scheme itself would make ample provision without creating a precedent. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept such an Amendment here and now, I hope he will consider it in another place; otherwise we shall have to take the matter to a Division, because we feel that we are conceding what the House does not wish to concede, if they are anxious to establish experimental abattoirs for the purpose of providing a good service for agriculture. If they are going to start with a burden of compensation and a burden of debt the whole thing is a failure before it starts.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: The Amendment deals with what I regard as a most important point. Licensed slaughter-houses have to receive their licence annually, and can be closed by the local authority. I myself have been associated with a great local authority which has closed many of these licensed houses without compensation, and if we do not put some Clause in the Bill which distinguishes between registered and licensed slaughter-houses in the


matter of compensation, we are placing licensed slaughter-houses in a position which they do not occupy under the law. That to my mind is a very serious matter. At the present moment local authorities have to pay compensation for slaughterhouses which are dirty, in an awful condition, and are in congested areas, and it has always been a grievance that registered slaughter-houses have been placed in this privileged position. If we are now going to place licensed slaughter-houses on the same level as registered slaughterhouses we are taking a very retrograde step. Moreover, if this distinction is put into the Bill, licensed slaughter-houses will be placed in no worse and no better position than that which they occupy today. The position will be exactly the same. I hope that for the sake of the success of the scheme the right hon. Gentleman will leave the matter as it is, so that compensation will not have to be paid to the licensed slaughter-houses. I am sure that would be one of the foundations of the success of the scheme.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) will realise that under the Bill as it is, licensed slaughter-houses and registered slaughterhouses are by no means on the same footing as regards compensation. The Bill provides for compensation to be paid to any person who suffers loss or damage by reason of the operation of the scheme. It is clear that when loss or damage is assessed, the security of the tenure that is interrupted will be a very important element. Consequently, as between licensed slaughter-houses which can be closed at any time and registered slaughter-houses which are on a more or less permanent footing, there will be a very great difference in the assessment of compensation. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) did not say that he would be compelled to vote in favour of the Amendment, but if the Amendment were taken to a Division and were passed, there would be no compensation under the Bill. The hon. Member will remember that in discussing this matter in the Committee, he said:
I agree with the Minister of Pensions that those who suffer direct loss are entitled to compensation, but many of them who are in business and could not be regarded as suffering loss, ought not to receive compensation."

—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 23rd March, 1937; col. 609.]
I agree entirely with that. The difference between the licensed slaughter-houses and the unlicensed slaughterhouses is a new point to me, and I will undertake to consider it between now and the time when this Bill goes to another place with a view to seeing whether there is anything that can be inserted in the Bill. In the meantime, I feel confident that the words which the hon. Member has moved to delete are sufficiently all embracing to enable this matter to be dealt with in the scheme, for the provision reads:
Requiring the person carrying on the central slaughter-house to pay, in such class of cases, and according to such principles, as may be determined by this scheme.…
Under that one could make a difference between the registered and the licensed slaughter-houses.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not conceivable that unless the scheme is definite and specific in ruling out a certain category of cases, there may be a multiplicity of cases going to arbitration, with enormous loss of time and at great expense?
Mr. Morrison: That is possible, but it would be specified in the scheme. This is a new point to me, and I shall look into it again and see whether there is anything that can be done. My feeling—and I hope the hon. Member will agree with me—is that the scheme can provide for any differentiation of compensation as between one place and another. It is also provided that loss or damage is the criterion. Therefore, I think we may defer this matter until we come to the scheme, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that when the scheme comes before the House, we shall have no opportunity to amend it? Once the Bill leaves here, we have to accept the scheme whether it be right or wrong, and so we lose all Parliamentary control in this matter.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I understand that the Minister proposed that these questions should be considered when the scheme comes forward, but he also said that he would consider the matter again. I hope that if he decides to include something in the Bill, he will also see that there is some definition of slaughter-


houses. A person might create a slaughter-house after the passing of the Bill, but before the scheme was brought forward, which would rank for compensation. There ought to be some definition as to when a slaughter-house becomes one which is eligible for compensation.

Mr. Marshall: A person could not do that, because it would be necessary to get a licence from the local authority.

Mr. T. Williams: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will consider what is to him a new point, between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 22, line 25, after "meat)," to insert "or the hides, skins or pelts of livestock."
Hon. Members who were present at the proceedings in the Committee upstairs, will remember that there was a good deal of discussion on the question of defining what a butcher is to be entitled to retain. The argument in favour of central slaughter-houses, is that the processes of killing would be carried out more efficiently than is the case to-day, and that certain of the products from killing would be used collectively better than they are used to-day. Whatever may be the merits of that argument, it is desirable that we should know clearly what are the products of which the owner of the beast will lose control. In the Committee, the Minister said:
Under the operation of this Bill the only right that can be conferred upon a body conducting one of these schemes is to come into possession of what I have called the unidentifiable offals. I have been cross-examined and asked for further and fuller particulars of what these are. Quite shortly, they are blood, horns and hooves, occasional fat scraps, glands, and offals of condemned meat which are not to be used for human consumption. These have all got very curious uses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C) 18th March, 1937; col. 381.]
Following on what was said, this Amendment seeks to add to butchers meat the identifiable offals, so that what will be left will be the unidentifiable offals; that is to say, the Amendment seeks to put into the Bill what the Minister has already

declared to be his intention. From what I have heard there would be a good deal of relief in some quarters if the Minister would agree to have inserted in the Bill what, by inference, he told us in the Committee, was his intention.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I beg to second the Amendment.
If this Amendment is accepted it will make clear that the butchers will be entitled to retain everything except the unidentifiable offals. I think that is extremely desirable from the point of view of administration. This is a matter which is receiving the very serious consideration of those connected with the trade relating to the products from slaughtering.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in moving the Amendment, but I cannot agree with him that the people owning the centralised abattoirs should be excluded from purchasing any of these offals. This is a limiting Amendment which would allow outside private enterprise to get a good hold on the various activities which are to be carried on by the abattoirs. Moreover, it would place local authorities under a very severe handicap. I would inform the hon. Member for South Croydon that some local authorities are now doing what he is seeking to prevent them from doing by this Amendment. Many abattoirs throughout the country are already acquiring some of these by-products.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Are they acquiring them compulsorily?

Mr. Marshall: By agreement. Under this Amendment, as I understand it, they would not be allowed to acquire them even by agreement. The Amendment would place a restriction on the activities of the board which is to control these abattoirs. If that restriction was allowed to creep into the Bill, it would make the scheme futile. The Government would not get the experience they are are seeking from these experimental slaughterhouses, and after having obtained the experience that could be gained from the restrictive Clause, they would have neither the competence nor the information to apply any general scheme to the country. The Amendment seeks to make


the centralised places merely slaughtering establishments. If that is all the Bill would do, it would not be worth spending £250,000 of the ratepayers' money on it. I can indicate places where centralised slaughtering is already in existence and are doing the job very well.
If the Minister wants only slaughtering experience, it is already to hand, and there is no need to spend one halfpenny of the ratepayers' money on it. In Glasgow, there is a centralised slaughter-house system which serves 1,250,000 people; in Liverpool there is one which serves 750,000 people, and in Sheffield probably 700,000 people are served by the central slaughter-house system. If all these opportunities of purchasing the by-products are to be taken away from the owners of the centralised slaughter-houses, what need is there to spend £250,000 of the ratepayers' money in order to get experience which is already to hand? If that is the tendency which the Bill is going to take. I could indicate to the Minister a better way of preparing a Livestock Bill. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist this Amendment with all his force.
I have often wondered what was in the Minister's mind with regard to this scheme. I have read the Boys Report, and I understand it suggested that 12 or 13 huge factory abattoirs should be placed in 12 or 13 convenient places in the country, where all the slaughtering, preparation for sale of the by-products and marketing of the meat would take place. If that be the idea in the mind of the Government, I can see that their attitude with regard to these experimental stations is consistent. It is consistent if they have in their mind that these experimental stations will have a very wide scope, with no restrictions placed upon them, and that when they have passed the period of experimentation, they will be able to give the Government the wide and comprehensive experience which is necessary in order to build up a system of factory abattoirs in the country.
I suggest that we cannot go half-way in this matter. If now, at the instance of private enterprise, we are first to eliminate one possibility from the scheme by excluding by-products from it, the whole scheme will be rendered futile. Let me give an illustration from my own ex-

perience. I remember a certain abattoir where the blood used to run down the drains. Blood is a very valuable byproduct, and in some parts of the country is being made into very valuable fertilisers. Owing to a dispute between the butchers and the local authorities, that blood was allowed to run down the drain. I expect that the hon. Member for South Croydon would say that blood ought to be excluded.

Mr. H. G. Williams: If the hon. Member takes the trouble to read the Amendment, he will see that it i3 perfectly clear on that point, and that blood is one of the things not excluded.

Mr. Marshall: I have read the Amendment and it appears to exclude the pelts or skins which are very important byproducts of slaughtering. We on this side say that if the Government are going to establish experimental slaughterhouses, they ought to do so on a comprehensive scale. If they are after experience, let them get the whole of the experience and let them not subject themselves to these pettifogging restrictions. I sincerely trust the Government will resist the Amendment.

Sir J. Lamb: I believe that if these abattoirs are to be successful, there will have to be processing plants with them. One of the advantages would be that they would have an assured through-put which is necessary for the success of any processing operations, and this would add to the usefulness of the abattoir as a whole.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The purpose of the Amendment, I take it, is to prevent any undue interference with the hide and skin trade being caused by the creation of these three experimental slaughterhouses. I do not think there should be any apprehension on that point. The schemes will have to detail with sufficient precision, what processing is to be carried out, so that any objection which is made in any locality will be heard and will receive careful attention. But it is impossible for me to say that in no circumstances should hides and skins be processed at a central slaughter-house. That work is done now in many central slaughter-houses without remark or rebuke. Indeed, the processing that goes on now in those slaughter-houses is in the


interests of the skin trade. It would be difficult to find a form of words which would state how much or how little processing should be done. For example, the cooling, the cleaning, and the salting of the hides are operations conducted very largely at public slaughter-houses to-day, and upon the prompt performance of these preliminary functions depends to a great extent the subsequent value of the hide and its usefulness for the trade. I was interested in a speech made by Alderman Pearse of Leicester, the chairman of the abattoir committee of that corporation. I learn on his authority, though I have not inquired independently, of one important consideration. He said:
I was informed in the Leicester hide and skin market that nearly 50 per cent. of the hides received there were classed as 'seconds' owing to bad flaying, and I estimate that that item alone costs Leicester butchers some £1,400 a year.
I do not make myself responsible for that statement, but it is interesting as coming from a responsible member of that corporation. If that be so, a great deal of loss is caused in the trade at present, by failure to carry out prompt and thorough methods of treating the hides, and it would be unreasonable to say that in no circumstances whatever could some degree of processing be applied to hides at the central slaughter-house.
There is a great deal of variation of sentiment about this matter. In some places they like to have these operations performed to a considerable extent in the slaughter-house. In other places, I presume because there is a private firm close at hand which does the whole thing, there is not the same feeling, and I suppose that in some localities it might be viewed with apprehension and dislike. But surely in these circumstances it is best to follow the language of the Bill and to leave these matters to be considered when a scheme comes up for discussion. Under the Bill whatever activities of this kind are proposed must be indicated in detail in the arrangements submitted to the Livestock Commission under Clause 23 and all who are concerned will examine the scheme closely after the Commission have announced their intention of submitting it to the Minister. That would be the time when these variations in local practice could be dealt with, and when it

would be possible to judge on what was definitely proposed. But I feel certain that it would be an unreasonable attitude for the Government to adopt in setting up these experimental slaughter-houses to say that in no circumstances at all should it be possible to do anything in the slaughter-house to the hide, skin or pelt except to tear it from the animal's back.

Amendment negatived.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 22, line 38, after "slaughterhouse" to insert "other than the central slaughter-house."
This Amendment with three others which follow it arise out of an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee. Some apprehension was expressed lest the Commission might, by means of a slaughter-house scheme, obtain information with regard to secret processes carried out at slaughter-houses other than the central slaughter-house. It is not our intention that a scheme should be or could be used for such a purpose. We were of opinion that the words:
to furnish such … information … as the Commission consider necessary for the operation of the scheme.
would be sufficient to prevent the utilisation of a scheme for the purpose of getting secret information on particular processes. But in order to make sure, these Amendments are proposed. They draw a distinction between information which is obtained from the central slaughter-house and information from other slaughterhouses in the area. The effect will be that the other slaughter-houses will be required to furnish the information necessary in connection with paragraph (c) of this Sub-section. Paragraph (c) deals with approval of premises and control of the classes and number of animals and so forth, and in no conceivable circumstances, could the Sub-section as amended enable the Commission to obtain, by means of their schemes, information in regard to secret trade processes. I think the Amendments are reasonable. I do not think the House would wish schemes to be used for such a purpose as I have indicated, and this Amendment and the others which go with it will make assurance doubly sure in that respect.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 22, line 38, to leave out from "applies," to the first "to," in line 39.

This Amendment is consequential on the elimination of paragraph (d, i).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 22, line 43, after "of," insert "any provisions of."

In page 23, line 1, after "scheme," insert "having effect by virtue of paragraph (c) of this Sub-section."

In line 3, leave out "further."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

6.11 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 23, line 15, to leave out from "slaughter-house," to the end of line 21.
I have the happiness to find myself, on this Amendment, in the company of hon. Members opposite with whom I am not usually associated, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and I are in agreement upon it, will show the House that this is something, at any rate, upon which it is very difficult to differ. The necessity for the Amendment arises in this way. It is necessary to permit the officers of the Commission to enter the premises of approved slaughter-houses in order to see that the provisions of a scheme are being carried out properly. When the Bill was being drafted it was thought that if those officials had to go into the slaughter-houses, it might be a good thing to arm them with the powers of local meat inspectors so that they might have carcases condemned. The matter was discussed at some length in Committee and fears were expressed that if that course were followed, there might be overlapping and perhaps friction between the inspectors of the Commission and the meat inspectors of the local authorities. On reflection, I have come to the conclusion that those criticisms are well founded, and the Amendment proposes to delete the power to which I have referred. It will have the effect of preventing any overlapping between these officers of the Commission and of local authorities in the inspection of meat.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 24, line 20, to leave out Subsection (3).
This Sub-section contains a definition of the word "quarter." As that word has now been removed from the Bill the definition is no longer necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Power of local authorities to provide and carry on slaughter-houses.)

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: I beg to move, in page 25, line 8, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no order or scheme shall permit of any process or manufacture being applied thereunder to any product of the slaughtering of livestock, except to the extent of preparing the product in a suitable form for delivery to a factory whose business it is to manufacture from such product in its original form.
The object of the Amendment is to prevent, if possible, the establishment of municipal factories in slaughter-houses to deal with processes which ought not to be carried on in such slaughter-houses and which, if permitted, will have serious effects on private undertakings and on many successful and established businesses. Two of the profitable by-products of slaughtering are the production of tennis gut and glue. This is a matter which, unless the Amendment is carried, will, I fear, be viewed with grave concern by many who have established businesses, and who feel that municipal trading and undertakings should not prevent the successful competition which is most desirable.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.16 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel the Marquess of Titchfield: I should like to support the Amendment, and I can do so in two sentences. If my right hon. Friend does not accept it, the Clause may adversely affect such trades as tanning, light leather dressing, glue, gelatine, dripping, soap, fertilisers, catgut and other useful commodities. We on this side of the House believe in the vital principle that subsidised industries should not adversely affect unsubsidised industries, and unless the Amendment is accepted this vital principle may not be assured.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am not quite sure how to take the Noble Lord when he makes speeches. I am not always sure whether he is serious or humorous. On many occasions he tells us that the only industry worth while is agriculture, and there is not a thing he would not do for agriculture. Now he states that because three experimental abattoirs are to be run as a service for agriculture he is not interested in agriculture but only in the side issues. Where does the interest of the Noble Lord lie? Is it in agriculture, or is it in the multiplicity of odds and ends that exploit agriculture?

Marquess of Titchfield: I am very interested in agriculture, and all those things appertaining to it.

Mr. Williams: The Noble Lord always seems willing to support proposals that the taxpayer shall subsidise agriculture, and to oppose anything that may help agriculture to help itself. He suggests that no subsidised undertaking ought to be in competition with an unsubsidised undertaking. I wish the Noble Lord had thought about that a few years ago. He is supporting a subsidy for milk for manufacturing purposes, and to that extent is supporting the erection of new dairy factories for the processing of milk which is subsidised by the Government which he has supported throughout. I know that it is not the lot of the politician to be consistent, except to be consistent in his inconsistencies. The Noble Lord is the perfect example of that, and I am not surprised that he is supporting the Amendment. It is a further restricting and limiting Amendment which is calculated, if accepted, to destroy the effectiveness of any experimental abattoirs. The Government after all do not intend to do too much. This Bill contains four parts—a part to restrict imports of beef and veal, a part to deal with the re-organisation of marketing, a part to deal with the establishment of experimental abattoirs, and a part to provide £5,000,000 as a subsidy for livestock producers. The Noble Lord will support the first and last, hut he is doubtful about the other two.
The Amendment would restrict the effectiveness and utility of the abattoir if it is to be nothing more than a huge shell where cattle are to be taken to be slaughtered. The utilisation of identi-

fiable and unidentifiable offals will make a success or failure of centralised slaughtering. What the Noble Lord and the Mover of the Amendment want to get rid of is the power of those who run the central abattoirs to do anything other than kill. An abattoir would be merely a shell where thousands of cattle, sheep and pigs are slaughtered and everything handed back to the individual butcher or to the owner of the animals. If the right hon. Gentleman is to get the maximum experience from such an experimental slaughter-house, he has to take a leaf out of the note-book of those who have been running a successful abattoir for many years. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and other hon. Members went to Leytonstone a few weeks ago and saw a big abattoir where nothing leaves the place—not even a squeal, because there is no such thing as a squeal at Leytonstone as humane slaughtering is the general rule. They sell the meat in the best possible condition after having allowed it to hang the appropriate length of time. They utilise every one of the identifiable and unidentifiable offals to the best advantage, and the whole thing has been a paying proposition for a long time.
If the Government, as is the case here, are to make a present of £50,000 to each of three bodies who are to take the risk of spending many hundreds of thousands of pounds to provide central slaughterhouses, the Government should be able to obtain from them all the information possible as the result of the experience of a year or two. How can they get that experience if the abattoirs are to be allowed only to kill the animals? This limiting Amendment would destroy the effectiveness of Part V of this Measure. I hope that the Leytonstone example will be multiplied and magnified by these experimental abattoirs. If the people who are running them are not to be able to use the offals to the best advantage, what advantage ultimately will the producer of cattle derive from this experiment? I would remind the Noble Lord that this proposal is intended as a service to agriculture. It is helping agriculture to help itself, and £150,000 is to be given by the Treasury to enable it to help itself. The Noble Lord, however, says, "Please do not do that; restrict them to the killing of cattle." The Mover of the Amendment says, "We do not want municipali-


ties to enter into any trading undertakings." If the right hon. Gentleman had taken our advice, the local authorities would not have been running these three central abattoirs. They would have been run by the State. It would have been State trading, which is the right thing to do because as the State is providing £50,000 as a gift and another £100,000 as a loan, it might well have run the abattoirs and provided the Government with all the information and experience they require. If, however, they leave it to the local authorities, or to a joint local authority, or to a public utility society, or whoever it may be, then at least they have to give those who run them a chance of making a success of the experiment. I hope that the Minister will not countenance any limitation of their powers.

6.26 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: I do not want to enter into any disquisition on the morals of the Noble Lord, which are as above reproach as those of the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway. I do not very much like the Amendment. One of the things on the list which the Noble Lord wishes to be excluded from the things which abattoirs should do is the making of fertilisers. Anybody who has been over the best-conducted abattoirs—as I have had the rather doubtful pleasure of doing once or twice—reaches a stage in the transformation of the animal at which there is something in the air besides the lowing of cattle—an emanation, or effluvium, if one uses a polite word, or stink if one uses the word which normally comes to one's mind. That is the department where certain by-products are being turned into manure. If all that had to be taken away from the abattoir and dealt with somewhere else, instead of on the spot, the unpleasant feeling would be widely distributed wherever the byproducts might be taken before they passed into the further stage of being made into manure. Offals are best treated on the spot, and no obstacle should be put in the way of these abattoirs doing it in order to get the best out of the beasts and all that the beasts produces. Therefore, I hope the House will not unduly restrict these abattoirs more than is normally and rightly done in other abattoirs which are carrying on their business on up-to-date lines.

6.28 p.m.

Major Hills: The question between the Mover of the Amendment and the Noble Lord, and the two speakers on the opposite side, is how to get the best out of the offals and how best to help agriculture in the processes through which the offals go. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) said that we want to get the best out of the beast. I accept that as a test. How do we do it? Is it done by doing what the Bill allows to be done, namely, to prepare for sale and to sell any of the by-products? What is meant by "prepare for sale"? Should the by-products be sold as such, or should they be manufactured into some of the numerous articles that are made from the by-products? I put to the House that you help agriculture best by having these by-products sold to the best advantage and at the best prices in the market which is always ready to take them, and not by investing a large sum of money in the various processes through which the by-products go. The question between myself and the other side is as to how far they would go. I do not think we should go so far as they would wish to go. I have been given a list of the products made out of offal, and the trades include tanning, pellmongering, leather dressing, glue and gelatine, edible dripping, soap and tallow, fertilisers and cattle foods, tripe boiling, neat's foot oil, cutlers' bones, and the casings of sausages. That is a pretty wide array.
How far do hon. Members want to go, as a matter of practical good sense? We should let the abattoir prepare for sale and sell these offals to the best advantage. I believe there is a very ready market for them, and that at present there is a shortage of supply and that it is a sellers' market. Should we not be doing the best for agriculture by preparing the offals to the extent that we have prepared them, and then selling them, rather than starting all those numerous industries, which are very technical and in which the products would come into a competitive market? It is not a question between selling the prepared article and selling it wholly unprepared. It has to be prepared for sale and I agree with the right hon. Member for Cornwall that that preparation has to take place on the spot. We cannot just send the things out on a lorry to another factory without some preparation. Do the Committee think it


would be a good thing that the door should be opened so wide as it would be unless some words such as those proposed are inserted? H the particular words are not suitable, the Mover of the Amendment will be prepared, I suppose, to consider other words. I am convinced that we should be doing the best for the industry by not going too far afield, and embarking in trades which are not part of the cattle raising industry or of the agricultural industry. We ought to confine ourselves to preparing these byproducts to a sufficient extent to get the best price for them and allow the manufacture to be carried on elsewhere.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not wish to truncate discussion on this matter, but I hope the House may now come to a decision upon it, because it is not a new point, but is very similar to one we have already discussed, and we have a lot of work to do. Again the difficulty is one of finding words which would be suitable to prevent an undue extension of powers, while at the same time not limiting too much a perfectly reasonable experimental effort on the part of these slaughter-houses. We have the same difficulty as in the last case, namely, the variation of local feeling and of local industries all about the country. We took what I still believe to be the better course of moving an Amendment in Committee to Clause 24 (I, g, i), which was accepted, providing that the scheme shall determine which of the products of slaughtering other than butcher's meat—which will also be defined—may become the property of the slaughtering authority. That Amendment was moved with the object of ensuring that the scheme would contain a full description of which products of slaughtering should become the property of the authority. Therefore, when a scheme comes up for discussion the whole extent of the processes and the number of the commodities will be clearly displayed. There will be no chance of someone starting an activity without someone having had the right to object.
If the House will be advised by me I think it will be far better to leave it as we have put it, so that in each case it will be left to local opposition and local criticism to put its point of view. When we are setting out, in these three cases,

to gain knowledge and experience it would be unwise unduly to limit the possible activities of these slaughterhouses. The Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) and other hon. Members have read out a terrifying list of trades the very existence of which appears to be imperilled by the chance that these three slaughter-houses—only three—may be in a position to make use of some of the products of slaughtering. It is vital to the whole conception of the Bill that the matter should be left for discussion on the schemes, and if the House will be advised by me, I think that is the course which should be adopted.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I am glad the Minister is taking the general line of asking the House to leave this matter to be dealt with in the schemes, but I am anxious about his general approach to the question, and very much hope that the kind of assurance he is giving to his followers does not mean that when a scheme for any particular abattoir is produced to the House the proposals in the Bill will have been found to be watered down. I agree that it is advisable to have each scheme considered on its merits and with due regard to all the circumstances of the case, but I hope the Minister is not foreshadowing any concession to the kind of view which was expressed, reasonably and temperately, by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), because when we come to look at what is actually being done with the by-products from abattoirs, there is no case at all for this Amendment. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to the abattoir at Leytonstone and what has been going on there for years, and what has been done there can be done in any other part of the country, and in the case of these three experimental slaughterhouses we ought to go beyond what is done there.
I was not altogether satisfied with the tone of the Minister's reply, and I think it would be fatal that he should give any impression to his followers that by leaving this matter to be dealt with in the schemes some concessions may be made to the point of view which has been expressed here this afternoon. We are all the more concerned about that because the Minister knows that there will be very little opportunity for criticism and amendment of


those schemes. It will depend a great deal upon the spirit in which the Ministry is prepared to administer this Measure, and to deal with the Commission's control of the schemes, as to how we shall regard this particular point. I beg both the Minister and hon. Members to consider the detailed examination of this case which was made by the De La Warr Committee. The chairman of that committee, now a member of the Government, went into the matter very carefully, and came to conclusions regarding the manufacture of by-products which I think are unanswerable. I do not want to take up time by quoting them, but if hon. Members will look at pages 22 and 23 of that report, dealing with skins and fats and their treatment, and the developments which could be undertaken not merely in the interests of the industries concerned with these by-products, but, ultimately, in the interests of agriculture, I feel certain they will not agree to any form of limitation. I hope the Minister will not leave the House under the impression that when the Bill comes into operation and the schemes are under consideration the Commission will have any suggestions made to them which would weaken in any sense the present form of the Clause.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I hesitate to intervene, because I know that there is a great deal to be done, but it will not do for the House to pass from this point leaving it to be thought that the hopes expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite are those of all of us in the House. There is another point of view. One appreciates the great advances which would be made in connection with the slaughtering and processing of livestock, but this slaughter-house scheme sets up a State subsidised concern. State money is to be loaned. This is to be a heavily-subsidised concern. I am quite ready to see central slaughter-houses vanquished by surrounding enterprises if the contest is on level terms, but it is not going to be on level terms. These slaughter-houses will have means of undercutting their competitors, and there is a danger to private enterprises which may be perfectly efficient. My right hon. Friend gave the example of the various processing firms round the slaughter-house in Edinburgh. I do not say that they are perfect, but they are very efficient, and I should

regard it as a very evil thing if this central slaughter-houses scheme should be so extended that all these private concerns were put out of the market by it. I think this is a fair summary of the situation: that if we have central slaughter-houses we must not limit their powers too rigidly, but at the same time must not extend them so greatly as to put out of business perfectly efficient firms running under private enterprise. I hope that when the Minister brings forward his various orders it will not be found that they go as far as the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) would desire them, although they go as far as is reasonable from a private enterprise point of view.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I sincerely hope that the Minister will not weaken on this point. I was a little anxious about the tone of his remarks. The previous Amendment sought to place a partial restriction upon what the central slaughter-houses could do, and this Amendment practically "goes the whole hog." It says in effect, that no authority operating a central slaughter-house will be able to purchase by-products with the object of processing them. That means that those places will simply be central slaughter-houses and I tell the Minister frankly that it will not be worth spending the money of the nation upon them if that is all he wants. I would point out the practical difficulties in which the Amendment would involve us.
There is the question of diseased meat. Anyone who is interested in this question knows that some of the articles which were mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) are produced from diseased meat—tallow and various other things. Is the right hon. and gallant Member prepared to allow diseased meat to be taken through the streets of a congested city, with all the possibilities of spreading disease, because it could not be processed on the spot? Blood is converted into a very valuable fertiliser. Imagine the position the authorities would be in if this Amendment were adopted. They would have to prepare the blood, to put it into receptacles and to cart it to the factory of a private company in order that it could be processed there. The thing is absolutely absurd. I thought the Minister was going to undertake a real experiment at these factory abattoirs, and that he would there acquire


experience which could be applied generally throughout the country if the experiments were successful. The Minister has elected to go on these lines, and I sincerely hope that he will make his experiments complete and comprehensive and of such a nature that they will give him the desired information.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 27.—(Exercise of Commission's functions by local authorities or joint boards.)

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 25, line 30, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 42, and to insert:

"(a) the local authority or joint board, acting in the discharge of functions delegated to them by virtue of this sub-section, shall not, except with the concurrence of the Commission, withhold approval of any premises for use as a slaughter-house; and
(b) where the local authority or joint board, acting as aforesaid, limit any such approval in point of time, or withdraw any such approval, or give any directions in relation to premises approved for use as a slaughter-house, the limitation withdrawal or directions, as the case may be, shall not take effect until confirmed by the Commission."

This Clause provides for the exercise of the Commission's functions by local authorities or joint boards. The Amendment relates particularly to the functions of the Commission which are described in paragraph (c) of Clause 24 (1), enabling the Commission to approve, or withhold approval from, slaughter-houses within the area of a scheme. Hon. Members who are on the Committee will remember that that paragraph was altered in the Committee. We think that the words of the Amendment are more in conformity with the new form of that part of Clause 24, and makes it clear that when those functions are delegated, the Commission shall be the final authority for their exercise.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Revocation of slaughter-house schemes.)

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 26, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:
(3) The revocation of a slaughter-house scheme by an order under this Section shall be without prejudice to anything previously done under the scheme and (subject to the

provisions of this Part of this Act limiting the number of slaughter-house schemes which may be confirmed) without prejudice to the making, submission and confirmation of a new scheme.
This is an Amendment of a drafting character to safeguard action taken under a slaughter-house scheme while a new scheme is in preparation. It is common form.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Service schemes.)

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 28, line 13, at the beginning, to insert, "At any time or."
The Minister will remember that, in considering this matter in Committee, we were concerned at the opening of the Clause dealing with service schemes that we should not take away from the Commission the real power of initiation, consideration and preparation of any of those schemes. The purpose of the Amendment is, therefore, to widen considerably the powers of the Commission in the initiation of service schemes. I do not think there is need for me to argue the case at length. It is plain from the Clause as it stands that without the words which we now propose to insert the Commission will have to wait for a request from some trade body or bodies substantially representative of firms in the industry. It is possible that such bodies will not indicate that they are prepared to take the initiative. They may be led to believe that schemes of this kind might damage their interests, notwithstanding that the Commission may be of the view that if some scheme were commenced it would be of great service to the industry. We should not take away from the Commission that power of initiation. Having had time to consider this point in detail since our discussion in Committee, the Ministry will now be prepared, I hope, to give way. I might as well indicate that we regard this matter as of such importance that, while we do not wish to delay discussion in the House to any great length upon this matter, if the Minister is not prepared to give way we shall be forced to divide the House.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that, as the Bill stands, the Commission cannot


prepare a service scheme unless requested to do so by any body or bodies that appear to the Commission to be substantially representative of some interest concerned with the livestock industry. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to alter that, and to enable the Commission to force schemes upon the industry without waiting for any initiative to come from it.

Mr. Alexander: To initiate.

Mr. Ramsbotham: When I link this Amendment, as I am entitled to do, with a later Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), designed to empower the Minister to approve a scheme without first assuring himself of the existence of a preponderating opinion in its favour, it appears that hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to alter completely the character of Part VI of the Bill. The only intention of this Part of the Bill is to enable any interest or combination of interests in the industry, whether producers or distributors, who are indicated in Clause 31 and in the new Clause which my right hon. Friend moved yesterday, to approach the Commission. It is not the intention to force schemes on the industry. That must remain a dividing point between us. We are not disposed to take the initiative; if you cannot force a scheme upon the industry, what is the good of taking the initiative? It is far more reasonable to allow the industry to come to the Commission with schemes.

Mr. Alexander: Surely it is possible to make an approach towards our proposal by giving power to the Commission to initiate a scheme and to put a draft of it before the industry for consideration. Otherwise nothing may be done at all.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think that that is at all the best way of approach. The best course is to allow the sections

of the industry concerned to take the initiative in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. My opinion is that schemes initiated by the Commission would be still-born from the outset. It is better, as I said on the Committee stage, for these schemes to be born in the countryside than to be born in Whitehall. People who are experienced in agriculture will bear that opinion out.

Mr. Alexander: They will be born in Whitehall.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to be convinced by what I am saying. A policy of forcing organisation upon the industry may appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am sorry it does, because that savours of dictatorial policy, which we had always hoped was very far from their thoughts, It shows how they move with the times. We prefer to leave these matters to the good sense of the industry. In point of fact, the Bill provides for re-organisation of the market system and for fairly large-scale experiments in slaughtering. I suggest that we see what the outcome of Parts IV and V will be, instead of over-weighting the Bill, as we should if we accepted the Amendment, by giving power to the Commission to initiate schemes and to endeavour to foist them upon the industry. Experience shows that we have a much better chance of the successful adoption of a scheme if we leave it to the voluntary initiative of the interests concerned than if we endeavour to impose schemes. For that reason, and in the hope that I have convinced the right hon. Gentleman I suggest that he should not press his Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 205.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m.


Adamson, W. M.
Cooks, F. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Ammon, C. G.
Daggar, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Banfield, J. W.
Dalton, H.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Barnes, A. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Barr, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bevan, A.
Day, H.
Hardie, G. D.


Bromfield, W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Cape, T.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Charleton, H. C.
Gardner, B. W.
Jagger, J.


Chater, D.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)




Jones, Moron (Caerphilly)
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Kelly, W. T.
Parker, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Parkinson,J. A
Tnorne, W.


Kirby, B. V.
Potts, J.
Thurtle, E.


Lathan, G.
Price, M. P.
Tinker, J. J.


Lawson, J. J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Walker, J.


Leslie, J. R.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Watkins, F. C.


Logan, D. G.
Ridley, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Lunn, W.
Riley, B.
Westwood, J.


Maodonald, G. (Ince)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W.


MoGhee, H. G.
Rowson, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Maclean, N.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmcre)


MaeNeill, Wair, L.
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Sexton, T. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Marshall, F.
Shinwell, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Maxton, J.
Short, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Messer, F.
Simpson, F. B.



Milnar, Major J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Ellis, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
Moreing, A. C.


Assheton, R.
Foot, D. M.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Frcmantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Furness, S. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. St Hugh


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbre, W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Blair, Sir R.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Owen, Major G.


Blaker, Sir R.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Patrick, C. M.


Blindell, Sir J.
Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harbord, A.
Peat, C. U.


Boulton, W. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Penny, Sir G.


Bracken, B.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pilkington, R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepworth, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Radford, E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cayzer, Sir O. W. (City of Chester)
Higgs, W. F.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Holdsworth, H,
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hopkinson, A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Channon, H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Christie, J. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Tayler, W. (Woodbridge)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Salmon, Sir I.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salt, E. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (Wst'r S. G'gs)
Keeling, E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Critchley, A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Selley, H. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W D.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Levy, T.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dawson, Sir P.
Lewis, O.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Liddall, W. S.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Spens, W P.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Loftus, P. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddcrsfield)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duggan, H. J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duncan, J. A. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Dungfass, Lord
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eastwood, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Magnay, T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.




Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Thomas, J. P. L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Titchfield, Marquess of
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wragg, H.


Touche, G. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Train, Sir J.
Wells, S. R.



Tree, A. R. L. F.
White, H. Graham
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Sir Henry Morris-Jones and Captain


Turton, R. H.
Withers, Sir J. J.
Hope.


Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

7.5 P.m.

Captain Heilgers: I beg to move, in page 28, line 20, after "livestock," to insert:
or the carrying on of the business of conducting sales by auction.
This is merely to get the Minister to clarify the position. This Amendment appears to be necessary notwithstanding the new Clause on service schemes in order to make it clear that the body representing the auctioneers may request that a service scheme may be made; otherwise it would be necessary to rely on the word "marketing," in line 17, to justify the auctioneers' position.

Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: With the object of this Amendment I am in entire sympathy. It is of great importance to make sure that the wording is such as to enable auctioneers as a body to operate the service scheme. The hon. and gallant Member drew attention to the words in the Clause, "the marketing of livestock." To get the full phrase it must read:
any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests of any class or classes of persons engaged in …the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock.
I cannot conceive how it is possible that auctioneers are not persons who are engaged in the marketing of livestock. However, I see the point that may lie behind the uncertainty, and I want to make the position clear. I will look at the matter again, and if it is necessary to produce any other words, I undertake to do so, and get it done in another place.

Captain Heilgers: In view of the Minister's words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 28, line 20, leave out "if they consider."

In line 23, leave out from "persons," to the end of line 32.

In line 34, leave out "for the performance of services," and insert:
under this part of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to as 'a service scheme')."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 28, line 40, to leave out from "to" to the end of line 2, on page 29, and to insert, "any of the said activities."
As the Bill stands, the scope of the scheme would be limited to the securing of statistics and information relating solely to the marketing of livestock or products of livestock. There does not seem to be any good reason why it should be so restricted. Producers may desire to get information relating to the production and slaughtering of livestock.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 29, line 3, after "livestock," to insert "or products of the slaughtering of livestock."
The purpose of this Amendment will be self-evident. It is to enable service schemes for insurance to be introduced in respect of livestock products, including the carcases of livestock as well as livestock itself.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 29, line 4, leave out "products of the slaughtering of livestock," and insert "such products as aforesaid."

In line 6, leave out "carcases," and insert "such products as aforesaid."

7.13 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 29, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(vi) the improvement of breeding of livestock.
The purpose of this Amendment is also self-evident. It is to ensure that among the purposes for which service schemes


can be put into operation is that of improving the breeding of livestock. Breeding is fundamental.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 29, line 7, leave out subparagraph (vi).

Leave out lines 20 and 21.

In line 23, leave out "enabling a body constituted by," and insert "constituting a body to administer."

In line 25, after "body)," insert "and enabling that body."

In line 32, leave out from "authorised," to end of line 33.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

7.14 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 29, line 36, after "appointed," to insert "or elected."
This is merely to provide that one of these authorised bodies may have its members elected instead of appointed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 30, line 32, after "payable," lo insert:
or (ii) of disputes as to any such other matters as may be specified in the scheme.
This is consequential on the enlarged duties of the body proposed to be set up under the new Clause. It was felt that there ought to be arbitration for disputes other than those in respect of the payment of compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 30, line 32, at the end, to insert:
(3) A service scheme for the marking of livestock or any products of the slaughtering of livestock may apply for the purposes of the scheme, with such adaptations as may be specified in the scheme, all or any of the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section two of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1928, as amended by the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Amendment Act, 1931 (which Subsections provide for the punishment of persons forging, counterfeiting or improperly using any mark prescribed by virtue of that Act).
We have amended the Clause to permit of a service scheme being applied for grading and marking. The operation of such a scheme would imply marks, and it is necessary to prevent the vitiation of such marks by forgery. This Amendment

will allow the scheme to apply, for the protection of its marks, the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1928.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 30, line 33, after "may," insert:
subject to the provisions of the next following Section."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Provisions with respect to submission, confirmation, amendment and revocation of service schemes.)

Amendment made: In page 32, line 4, at the end, insert:
or
(c) to facilitate the preparation, promotion or operation of any livestock markets order or livestock markets by-laws."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

7.19 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 32, line 7, to leave out sub-paragraph (i).
I move this Amendment for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman how he intends to interpret the expression "preponderating opinion." Are we to take it that, if certain representations are made to the Commission, they will produce a service scheme because they feel that those who make the representations are substantially representative of that interest? When the Minister comes to confirm a service scheme, he has to apply another interpretation. There now has to be a preponderating opinion. Will he tell us whether a preponderating opinion has to be a larger proportion than is implied by substantial representation; or must the latter be larger than the former?

7.21 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member has asked me a question which is rather difficult to answer, because it is based upon a hypothetical set of circumstances. I think that neither he nor I would have any difficulty in recognising the existence of a preponderating body of opinion if we saw it, but it is rather a difficult thing to describe. I think that the way in which the two provisions to which he has drawn attention should be construed is as follows: The preparation of a scheme by the Commissioners has, as he says, to be preceded by the existence of a body substantially representative; that is to say, before a service scheme has any prospect of functioning


usefully, there would have to be in existence a body uniting in one group the members of that particular section of the industry, and that body would have to be substantially representative of those concerned. As regards the duty of the Minister in confirming the scheme, he has to be satisfied that there is a preponderating opinion in favour of the formation of the scheme among the persons in the class that is liable to contribute. When the Minister confirms a scheme, he must know that he is imposing upon this particular class the obligation to contribute for the object of the scheme, and he must satisfy himself that it is the desire of the great majority of those thus affected that the scheme should be confirmed. In other words, he must be satisfied that any minority that exists is so small that it must not be allowed to hold up the operation of the service scheme. That is the way in which the Minister would regard the matter before he would give his assent to or confirm a scheme which imposes a levy.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: Would the Minister indicate in what way he would ascertain whether there is substantial representation or a preponderating opinion? Would it be possible to take some form of ballot among the particular class concerned in the operation of these service schemes? Surely some machinery is necessary to ascertain whether there is that opinion which is likely to make the scheme successful. It is difficult for us, without some further explanation from the Minister, to give him the powers that he is going to exercise under this Sub-section, which will prevent a scheme from coming into operation until he is finally satisfied that it will work and will be financially successful. If the Minister could indicate more clearly how the machinery will operate, we might understand and appreciate the extent of the powers which we are about to confer upon him under this Sub-section.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: Clause 31 makes it necessary, before a service scheme can be considered or prepared, that there shall be a body substantially representing the persons concerned. It is perfectly easy to ascertain how representative these trade associations are, and, when it comes to the question of confirmation,

the Minister will satisfy himself, on the evidence brought before him by the representative body, that there was a preponderating opinion in favour of the scheme. I do not think it would be wise to insist upon a ballot being taken. Some of these associations are extremely representative; there are very few people outside them; and it would be easy to scrutinise the evidence which they would put before one to show that there was a preponderating opinion in favour of the scheme. Ministers are very accessible to those who are not in favour of a proposal, and I have no doubt at all that any minority in the class affected who felt that the scheme was against their interests would let the Minister know speedily, and he would have no difficulty, after a little inquiry, in finding where the preponderating opinion lay.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 33, line 11, after "prejudice" insert "to anything previously done under the scheme or."— [Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 36.—(The Fund for purposes of this Act, and payments to be made thereto and therefrom.)

7.27 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 34, line 4, to leave out "five," and to insert "four."
This Amendment would reduce the sum of £5,000,000, stated in the Clause, to £4,000,000. It was originally put on the Order Paper for the purpose of hearing what the Minister has to say with regard to the rising prices of British beef. We had a fairly long Debate yesterday on the prices in 1934 and in 1937. I must confess that we were very disappointed at the reply of the Ministers and their refusal to do anything with regard to examining the costs of production or the variation in prices as between town and town, and their unwillingness to fix a standard price so that any subsidy could have a relation to the difference between the cost price and the market price. They therefore left us with no option but to vote in favour of our Amendment and to express our dissatisfaction with this very crude method of subsidising an industry without any knowledge of the right or wrong of what the Government are doing.
Up to now the Ministers have given us not the faintest information as to their mathematical calculations, if any—I doubt whether there have been any at all —or as to what helped them to reach the conclusion that a subsidy of £5,000,000, when the price of fat cattle is at a certain point, will just leave the producers of fat cattle with a price that will not only cover their outgoings but give them a profit for their investment and labour. We have had no sort of information yet as to the basis upon which past and present Ministers have made their calculations, and this Amendment to reduce the subsidy to £4,000,000 is a further expression of our desire for some statement from the Minister as to why he thinks now that a subsidy of 7s. 6d. per live cwt., with an average price of 44s. 6d. ruling throughout the country, is just the right figure to provide an economic price for the producer. Will he tell us what his calculation is based upon, and go a step beyond what he said last evening, namely, that when the price of fat cattle was round about 37s. the then Minister gave a subsidy of 5s., which he thought would put cattle producing just on the shelf? We want to know how many more shillings beyond 42s. are required before the cattle producer is safely home and fully rescued. If the Minister will tell us just when the cattle producer is landed happy and content, we shall know what to do with regard to this Amendment. In the absence of some more comprehensive and logical statement about the steps which the Government have taken and are taking, we shall have no alternative but to register our protest once again against the Government's refusal to tell the nation what they are doing and why they are doing it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman asks on what calculations we arrive at the figure of £5,000,000. There has been no meticulous calculation of costs of production. Attention was drawn last night to the many unsettling factors which complicate such calculations in this industry. One factor to which reference was made, namely, the weather, is one with which we are all thoroughly acquainted whether we are farmers or not. It was the idea that with the assistance of this £5,000,000 the industry might be rescued from a dangerous state of

collapse, and that the subsidy might tide it over an extremely difficult time. It is not an exact calculation of the gap between costs of production and prices. We have never gone on the assumption that costs of production can be accurately estimated, but we think that with this assistance there is some hope of restoring this vital branch of the industry to its proper state of prosperity. The £5,000,000 is put into the Bill as the maximum sum for which Parliament is liable, and that is how the House ought to regard it. The actual way in which it will be spent is a matter which will be determined each year by vote in the House, and the White Paper made it abundantly clear that the market situation will be carefully considered in our determination of the subsidy arrangements.
I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman has been to some degree prompted to move the Amendment because of recent improvements in the prices of fat cattle. He has himself drawn attention to that welcome feature once or twice, and he, no doubt, thinks that as there has been an improvement since the Bill was introduced, it is perhaps not correct in its estimation of the requirements of the industry. But I would ask him to bear in mind the various factors which must be offset against the present improvement. In the first place, a rise in spring and early summer is a seasonal and normal happening, and it is required by the industry, because it has to repay the cost of feeding not on grass but indoors throughout the winter. That is a more expensive process than feeding outside, and unless you get a rise at this time of the year, you are unable to make ends meet for the increased cost of winter feeding. Last year it happened that stores were dear, and store cattle, being the raw material for the fat stock industry, must be taken into account before you can estimate any return of real prosperity to the industry. I mentioned that there was a sharp rise in the cost of foodstuffs. How sharp it is is not perhaps always recognised. In March, 1936, the index of foodstuffs was 85, and in March of this year it was 118. That is a very sharp rise which must be offset against the improvement in price. The improvement comes after a long and severe period of depression which has exhausted the financial resources of many farmers and has


exhausted their fields because they have not been able to replace what should have been replaced in the way of fertility.
Before we come to the conclusion that these prices show anything excessive in the way of profit, let us cast our minds back over a longer period and see what they were before the slump. In the first three weeks of April of this year the average for first and second quality cattle, all breeds, was 40s. 7d. per live cwt., or, with the subsidy, 45s. 7d. For the corresponding weeks of the years 1927 to 1931 the average price was 50s. 5d. without any subsidy at all. The truth is that, in spite of this recovery, livestock prices are still lagging behind the general agricultural recovery. If you take the pre-war index of prices at no, in March, 1937, the index for fat cattle was 102 and for stores 105, whereas the general index for all agricultural commodities was 130, showing that while there has been some recovery in the agricultural world as a whole it has not been shared, in spite of the events of the last few weeks, by the livestock industry. I would put these considerations before the House as a justification for what I said last night, that we should not shout until we are out of the wood. We have to take a long view of all these agricultural movements. The hon. Gentleman probably moved the Amendment in order to get information rather than with the intention of actually reducing the amount, but nothing could be worse, from my point of view, for agricultural prosperity and revival than that we should come to this decision on the experience of a few weeks of better prices after a long reign of depressed and poverty-stricken conditions. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will trust to the mechanism that exists in the Bill and the financial control of the Government Departments to see how much of the subsidy should be spent, and leave it as the figure stands in the Bill until we are more clear about the future prosperity of the industry.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Price: I cannot let the Minister get away with the statement that you cannot estimate the cost of production of livestock. The agriculural research stations have been working at this for some time, and it is only because they have not got sufficient financial support that they have not yet produced an

average figure which would give us an idea of what the costs of production of fat cattle are. If we cannot know that now, the Commission should at least take steps to ge the facts upon which the subsidy should be based. [Interruption.] I gave a number of facts when discussing the matter in Committee and I pointed out that there are places where, in spite of the difficulties of recent years, it is still possible for feeders of fat cattle to cover their costs of production, where it is possible to feed them without much cake. There are also those who, if they had a subsidy of 10s., could not make it pay. What we require is a survey over the country and, when we get the facts, we shall know very much more than we do at present. I admit they would only be average figures. It is impossible to say that the cost of production is so much, but it is possible to say that within certain areas the average is so much and, as far as I can see, there is no guarantee that under the Clause we shall have it.
I agree that the rise that has been taking place in the last few weeks is partly a seasonal rise, but not entirely. It is due also to the fact that there has been a shortage of stores. Owing to the very bad conditions of the last year or two, breeding has not been going as it does normally, and that has largely reflected itself in the fat stock prices. That confirms my view that we are for the next year at least likely to have somewhat higher figures. We are not going to get in the immediate future prices which will make the subsidy unnecessary but who can say, having regard to general world conditions, that in a year or two prices may be such as to render a subsidy unnecessary? Who would have thought a year ago that wheat prices would now be up to 10s. a cwt.? Who would have thought that the milk subsidy would be altogether unnecessary? It is quite unsafe for the Minister to argue that prices are still so low that we can avoid dealing with a matter of this kind in the Bill. It may be a long time before we shall be able to discuss matters of this kind again, and now is the time to make what provisions are necessary in view of uncertain world conditions.
Therefore, although I wish to make it quite clear that I do not think the subsidy will be unnecessary in the near future, yet owing to the considerable rise in prices I do think that the House should make


provision in case such a situation should arise. We have to consider the interests of the taxpayer, and that we must get the general sympathy of the public and convince them of the necessity of assisting agriculture if we are to avoid making assistance of this kind unpopular. For that reason we are entitled to protest that no sufficient care has been taken to provide for a sliding scale, or a standard price, or to provide the necessary means whereby we can get information about general costing figures.

7.46 p.m.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has moved to reduce the figure from £5,000,000 to £4,000,000, but the Minister has made an excellent, unanswerable Case for British agriculture that the figure should remain at £5,000,000. My doubt is whether we are going to get the £5,000,000. We fear that for some reason, because of rising prices, the amount of the subsidy paid will not be the figure put forward in the White Paper, but that there will be a less sum provided out of the Exchequer and that we shall only receive that less sum. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the £5,000,000 will be paid from the Exchequer into the fund at all times and on all occasions.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: We cannot accept the assurance of the Minister in the form that he has given it, because although there may be continual fluctuations in the prices of fat cattle and the whole tendency of prices is to rise, we are left to assume that the subsidy will also rise, on the basis of previous years, when the maximum was £4,000,000. With the present rising prices we have the recent estimate of £5,000,000. There is another factor in regard to which no satisfactory statement has been made, and that is that the Government have no intention of stating what would be termed the standard price on which the subsidy should be paid. It means, therefore, that with the fluctuations and the continued rise there will be no change in the subsidy. For these reasons we are bound to make our protest in the direction of opposing the amount of subsidy that is proposed.

Mr. T. Williams: Might I, with the permission of the House, say that we have expressed our point of view, we shall

have a. further opportunity of expressing our point of view on the Third Reading, and we have no desire to force a Division, which would be merely a waste of time. I much prefer that the time should be Utilised in giving reasons for the action we shall take on the Third Reading. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 46.—(Incidental provisions as to orders, regulations and schemes.)

7.49 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 39, line 41, after "requiring," to insert:
in the case of a livestock markets order.
A decision was taken in Committee making the person carrying on a central slaughter-house alone leviable in respect of contributions for compensation for slaughter-houses. This Amendment and the one immediately following are consequential upon that decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 39, line 41, after "Commission," insert:
or, in the case of a slaughter-house scheme, the person carrying on the central slaughterhouse."— [Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 47.—(Publication, validity and commencement of certain orders.)

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, in page 40, line 31, to leave out "six weeks," and to insert, "three months."
I do not want to spoil the harmony that has marked the proceedings, but I cannot allow this Clause to pass without a few words of protest. As the Clause stands it says that the Minister may make orders in respect of livestock markets, slaughter-house schemes, and service schemes, and if an order is to be challenged in any legal proceedings it must be done within a period of six weeks from the making of the order. If proceedings are not instituted within that period of six weeks the order cannot be ultra vires. The Minister may have entirely exceeded the powers which Parliament thought fit to give him, but anyone who is aggrieved or affected by what he does will have no redress whatsoever, because apart from that six weeks period of challenge the Minister is to have completely arbitrary powers in regard to


these orders. That would not matter so much if the orders he made were small matters affecting only a few people, but no one could possibly suggest that of the three forms of orders which are contemplated in the Clause. They are matters which will affect a large number of people. The number of things which the order may prescribe is very considerable, and then there is the procedure that is laid down for hearing objections and so forth. It would be very easy for an order to be made which would in some respect or other be ultra vires, and no one affected would have any kind of redress.
The reason why I move the Amendment is that this form of Clause, sometimes called the finality Clause, was very carefully considered by the Committee on Ministers' Powers. The main recommendation of that committee dealt precisely with this kind of legislation. They dealt with Clauses which are expressed in words like these, in which there is no period of challenge. They said that Clauses of that kind were never justified and should never be used in any circumstances. They went on to say that even in cases where there was some special reason for achieving finality within a certain period of time, there should always be a period within which it should be possible for Ministerial orders or regulations to be challenged. They said that in their view that period of challenge should be six months, although they qualified that statement a little by stating that at the very minimum it should be three months. That was admittedly a very authoritative report. It was produced by a committee on which three parties in this House were represented. Eminent jurists also were on the committee, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that the minimum period for a purpose of this kind of legislation should be three months. I know that the Government paid very little regard to the recommendations of that committee. They are far too concerned with building up and strengthening bureaucratic powers to have much regard to what that committee recommended, but as far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned we do not intend on any occasion to let Clauses of this kind pass without some protest.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member attempted to represent his Amendment as a stand for old custom against some insidious practice of modern times, of which he accuses this Government of being guilty, namely, that of bolstering up bureaucracy. This proposal that there should be a period of limitation within which the validity of a scheme can be contested in the courts is not a new thing. I have recently seen a book on the Parliamentary powers of English government, and the learned author of that work, after examining the Statutes from 1850 to 1931, found that there were during that period over 150 Statutes in which a provision of this kind occurred, and fewer than 50 of those were Statutes passed after 1900. If one wants to see this sort of provision in full power on the Statute Book one has to go to the days of Gladstone and Disraeli.

Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which particular Statutes he has in mind? Is he referring to complete finality Clauses or Clauses in which there was some period of challenge?

Mr. Morrison: I was referring to Statutes in which in one form or another there was a deliberate limitation by Parliament of the powers of the courts to challenge the validity after a certain period.

Mr. Foot: What was the period?

Mr. Morrison: That is another matter. We will come to that later. This is no new thing, and when one considers the merits of the case it is abundantly justified. The Donoughmore Committee pointed out that this sort of procedure was justified where a scheme was in existence on the face of which persons changed their position, perhaps by buying or selling land, entering into contracts of service, building houses, raising money and becoming liable in a variety of ways for consequences for which they. would not have become liable except on the faith of the scheme. It is right that the court should have the last word as to the validity of any Act of this character, but it is also right that there should be a period of limitation wherein that validity can be challenged. Otherwise, we might have contracts entered into and persons upset by some litigious person perhaps three or four years after the event.
On the actual question of the proper time limit, I shall say something later. This is no vice of the present Government, as the hon. Member seemed to suggest. I have had an examination made of the Statute Book since 1932 and there are only six cases in which this sort of provision has occurred. Where there is a period of limitation during which alone the validity of a scheme can be challenged the time runs from two months to 28 days, so that the period we are suggesting here, namely six weeks, is rather higher than the average. It is quite a moderate figure. I would ask the hon. Member to reflect what we are trying to do in this Bill. We are trying to set up a Commission and devise schemes to improve the industry on all its sides. They are all schemes which may well have a profound effect on the wellbeing of the industry. When he looks at this Bill he will find it is very easy for anyone to hold up the whole operation of a scheme for a very long time indeed, and to do it quite easily simply by issuing a writ. If he looks at Clause 47 (4), he will there see that it is provided:
(4) Subject as hereinafter provided, an order confirming a slaughter-house scheme or confirming a service scheme shall come into operation at the end of the period of six weeks from the beginning of the day on which notice of the making of the order is published in accordance with this section:
Provided that if proceedings for the purpose of questioning the validity of such an order are duly begun within the period aforesaid, the court before whom proceedings are taken may at any time before the end of the said period direct that the order shall not come into operation before the final determination of the proceedings.
That means that at any time within this six weeks anyone who for any reason at all objected to the scheme coming into operation had only got to issue a writ—which can be done very simply—and then he might have the whole thing held up for a very long period. I suggest to the hon. Member that a period of six weeks is ample. Anyone with a genuine point of principle can surely make up his mind within six weeks of the order being published whether or not it is in excess of the Minister's powers.

Mr. Foot: Before the Minister sits down will he deal with the main point I raise which is that all these considerations were no doubt before the Committee on Ministers' powers, and the Committee having considered all these arguments

they said that three months should be the minimum period. Are we to understand that the Government do not intend in this case or any other to accept the recommendations of the Committee?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member shows a striking reverence for the Committee. The members of a very respected and learned body came to a certain conclusion, but it is one thing to come to a conclusion in the abstract and another thing to fit the particular circumstances to the period under review. He asked me whether the Government would in those circumstances have nothing to do with the report. That would be a travesty of the situation. The Government regard the Report as being extremely useful and interesting, but at the same time I say that for the purpose of the Livestock Industry Bill we think a period of six weeks sufficient and we do not accept the Amendment to increase that to three months.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 49.—(Employment of persons in connection with grading and marking of carcases.)

8.3 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 41, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as the case may be, may charge, in respect of the performance by any person of any service which he is employed under this Section by the said Minister or Department to perform, such fee not exceeding five shillings as may be prescribed in relation to that service by regulations made by the said Minister or by the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be; and any sums received by the said Minister or Department by virtue of this Sub-section shall be applied as an appropriation in aid of moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of expenses incurred under the preceding Sub-section by the said Minister or Department, as the case may be.
The point about this Amendment is simply that it has been customary to have a fee charged in the neighbourhood of 2S. for a beef carcase down to a few pence for the carcase of a sheep. It is better to have it on a regular basis, and the only thing I would say is that the sum of 5s. is intended to keep the charges about the present level.

Mr. Adamson: The sum suggested here is 5s. The Minister has told us that the fees generally are of a few pence to a few shillings, but is it not the case that


generally when a maximum figure like this is inserted the danger is that it will become a regular and daily charge? Without some proviso it seems that it would be better to have some fee that could be met by some arrangement rather than by fixing a sum that was likely to become general instead of being the exception.

Mr. Morrison: I think I can reassure the hon. Member that there is no such intention at all. It is merely a maximum, and there are many cases where maximum figures are put into Acts of Parliament, and they are always put a bit high because one does not know what will happen. It is a great pity to put them too low and unforeseen circumstances cause them to be raised. There are other cases where there is a maximum which is not often reached, such as very heavy penalties and terms of penal servitude for offences which are very often dismissed with the binding over of the person in charge. In this case I can assure the hon. Member that there is no intention of altering the existing arrangements and that the 5s. is only put in to regularise the existing practice and, in the second place, to provide a figure which it is hardly likely will ever be reached.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 54.—(Application to Scotland.)

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 43, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(8) Sub-section (2) of Section forty-six of this Act shall have effect as if for the reference therein to the Fourth Schedule to the Local Government Act, 2933, there were substituted a reference to the Second Schedule to the Rating (Scotland) Act, 2926, and paragraph (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929.
This Amendment provides that Subsection (2) of Section 46, which was added to the Bill in Committee, shall apply suitably to local authorities in Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Incidental provisions as to Livestock Commission.)

8.9 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 45, line 17, at the end, to insert:
5 It shall be the duty of the Ministers to satisfy themselves, with respect to any person whom they propose to appoint to be a member of the Commission or who is a

member of the Commission, that that person will have or has, as the case may be, no such interest in any agricultural or commercial undertaking as is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a Commissioner; and any such person shall, whenever requested by the Ministers so to do, furnish to them such information as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under this paragraph.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) moved an Amendment importing into this Bill conditions of a similar character which exist in the Sugar Industry Act. These compelled a person who might be appointed to a Commission to make a declaration of all his interests that might affect the execution of his duty with regard to sugar, and gave a discretion to the Minister thereafter, to say whether or not those interests were likely to affect him in the execution of his public duty. In the case of the livestock industry such a proceeding would be rather elephantine, because you might say you had an interest if you kept a pig at your house in the country, or had any form of livestock at all about the premises. In order to meet the point it was agreed upon in principle by the Committee on all sides that there should be some opportunity for the Minister to ascertain what holdings might be in their possession. In order to find words to fit that I propose the words now on the Order Paper. I think they give the Minister sufficient power and compel a sufficient disclosure to ensure that no improper appointment shall be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE (PART I).—(Provisions to be complied with in connection with the making of Livestock Markets Orders.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 48, line 18, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 31, and to insert:
consider any objections to the draft order which have been duly made to him, and may, after holding such inquiries (if any) as he thinks fit, make such modifications in the draft order as he may, after consultation with the Commission, consider desirable:
Provided that—

(a) where an objection to the draft order has been duly made by any person appearing to the appropriate Minister to be affected thereby, and has not been withdrawn, the said Minister, unless he considers the objection to be frivolous or irrelevant or unless the objection has been


met, shall, before taking any further action with respect to the draft order, direct the holding of an inquiry with respect to the objection and consider the report of the person holding the inquiry; and
(b) if the appropriate Minister decides to make any modifications in the draft order, he shall cause notice of the proposed modifications to be published in such manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected."

This Amendment affects the provisions to be complied with in connection with the making of livestock market orders. There are subsequent Amendments in my name to the later Schedules, and I can say at once that the object of all these Amendments is the same, namely, to bring the procedure in all the Schedules into line and to make similar provisions apply as to the making of various orders and bye-laws. There was some criticism in Committee on variations in the Schedule as already drafted, and it was generally felt that it would be desirable to bring them into line, and I think we have succeeded. As this is a fresh Amendment I would say a word or two as to the effect it will have. There are, of course, differences between the various instruments, and there must be corresponding differences in the Schedule applying to their making, revocation and so on; but the general effect of this Amendment, and those which succeed it to a similar tenor, is to make mandatory upon the Minister the holding of an inquiry when objections are still outstanding, unless those objections are frivolous or irrelevant. Before that an inquiry might be held by the Minister if he thought necessary, but there was a general desire, so long as it appeared that there was a substantial objection outstanding, that the Minister should be compelled to hold an inquiry, and I have acceded to that.
There is no direction in the Amendment that the inquiry should be local. Some hon. Members have moved an Amendment to that effect, but let me explain the difficulty about putting into the Statute that the inquiry must be local. Remember that a livestock market order may cover a very wide territory, embracing two or three counties, and when we put words into a Statute we have always to envisage the possibility of local proceedings arising from them. If the making of a draft livestock markets order led to

an inquiry covering the counties of Cornwall and Devon, and we chose Exeter as the seat of inquiry, that might be held local to one county but not to the other.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and I think we had better take this discussion on that.

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged to you, Sir, for the news that the Amendment is to be selected. May I ask your guidance? I think there was an Amendment requiring that the inquiry should be public. I do not know whether it is in here or not. The only other observation I would make on the matter is that it should not be made mandatory that the inquiry be held in public.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

8.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 10, after "inquiry," to insert, "in the area to which the draft order applies."
As the Minister is aware, there was a good deal of discussion about this in the Committee, and on the whole it seemed to be favourable. But I should like the Minister, in reply, first of all to explain to us whether he can accept the Amendment, and, if he cannot, why he cannot do so. Secondly, will he give us as reassuring a statement as possible that the inquiry shall be held in the area whenever possible? Nearly always there is a request for an inquiry to be held close to the locality, and I suggest to the Minister that it would be worth while considering whether, if not in regard to this Bill, in future Bills, it would be possible to discover a form of words to avoid these constant discussions on the locality of an inquiry. It is always considered that an inquiry should take place in the centre of interest. It would save a great deal of Parliamentary time if something could be done on the lines I have suggested.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
While the Amendment of the Minister to the Third Schedule to some extent


meets the views expressed in the Committee upstairs, I think that if he will call upon his memory he will admit that the point embodied in this Amendment found very strong support on all sides of the Committee. Upstairs the Minister advanced the same argument that he was proceeding to advance a short time ago, namely, that the insertion of a provision that the inquiry should be local would present a difficulty if a draft order covered, say, the counties of Devon and Cornwall. I am not very much impressed by the argument of the Minister. It is improbable that any market order would cover a long stretch of territory such as is represented by Devon and Cornwall, but even if that should prove to be the case, I do not consider that there is any difficulty in the Amendment which we propose.
I draw the attention of the Minister to the actual wording of the Amendment, which says "in the area to which the draft order applies" Therefore, if the draft order did, in fact, cover the counties of Devon and Cornwall, I see no difficulty in the way of such an inquiry being held in Exeter if it proved to be the most convenient centre. It would be far better to hold an inquiry affecting the market interests of Devon and Cornwall in Exeter than to hold it in London. All we desire here is not to determine, or to interfere with, the area which the draft order may cover, but to establish the principle of whether the area of the draft order shall be limited or cover a rather wide area. There would be very few market areas that would cover the area which the Minister has visualised, but if that eventuality should arise, it does not appear to destroy the principle that we have in mind.
I have a little difficulty in appreciating the obstinacy of the Minister on this point. If I felt that there was any considerable administrative difficulties in the way, I would not be prepared to press this point to the extent of a Division; but it was very significant that the Minister's thoughts were proceeding on exactly the lines upon which they proceeded upstairs, which we know convinced all Members of the Committee. He will remember that he took the very sensible view in Committee that it was undesirable to have a hasty Amendment to the Schedule, and we left it to the Minister to examine this proposal. There was fairly general

anticipation that the Minister would meet this very simple point He will agree with me that agricultural opinion is rather parochial in its outlook, and the interests of local authorities would be involved here. It is very significant that the local authorities are still pressing this point. There is no substantial reason why he should refuse to accept the Amendment, which is a simple one and falls into his general Amendment and does not upset its purpose. I trust that, as the Bill has had rather an easy passage this evening and the House has been very amenable to the wishes of the Minister, at this eleventh hour he will make this small concession, upon which we place a good deal of importance.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. H. Haslam: I support the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) pointed out that in rural districts, though he did not perhaps put it in quite these words, they attach the greatest importance to these local inquiries. They are somewhat distrustful of bodies in Whitehall, who, with the very best intentions in the world, prepare for them schemes for their own benefit, but in which they may have very little voice. In this case we hope that the local authorities of these rural districts and small market towns will have full discussion and opportunity of presenting their case, and full notice. That matter is still in slight doubt. The Minister promised to meet us, and I am quite certain that he will. I notice that he indicates assent.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I promised to consider it.

Mr. Haslam: This question is necessarily very important. Let me call the attention of hon. Members to the words of the Amendment:
Where an objection to the draft order has been duly made by any person appearing to the appropriate Minister to be affected thereby.
Those words go far to meet the view we put forward in Committee, and they would include local authorities, associations and organisations in the area. But I would point out that these draft orders, which are for the more efficient management of the marketing system, may include an order to close a market, which is a very different proposition from an order to improve a market. I submit


that where it is an order for the closure of a market an inquiry should be held in the area concerned. In the small towns market day is the day on which the greater part of the people make their livelihood. Things are dead on other days, but on market days the little town is crowded with country folk, who come to do their shopping. Their livelihood largely depends on the business they do on market day. It would be a serious thing for such towns if the market was closed, and if such an order is made there should be a public local inquiry. The decision may go against them and they would be disappointed, but they have had their say and they have heard what can be said against them. Therefore, there will not be that rankling sense of injustice, which may be felt if a closing order was imposed upon them without their being able to put their own case. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

8.28 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: The Minister has shown himself so very hardhearted throughout the Bill that I really think we can ask him to accept this Amendment to his Amendment. It is a very small one, but very important to local people. They desire that an inquiry affecting their local market should be held in the area concerned. It has been suggested that a marketing order might be made covering Devon and Cornwall. I can imagine nothing more fatal to the success of the scheme than a proposal of that sort. It would be very inconvenient for people in Cornwall to come to Exeter and for people in Devon to go to Truro; and equally inconvenient for the parties to come to London.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope the Minister will consider the point of view of local authorities. It has been the usual practice wherever a local authority has been affected by a Parliamentary Measure to hold a local inquiry within the area, and the Minister is guided by his inspector's report. The right hon. Member's reference to Cornwall and Devon hardly covers the point of the local authority. Unless the inquiry takes place somewhere in The area involved, it might mean that local authorities would have to send representatives to London at great cost.

There is no necessity to involve local authorities in excessive costs if by the simple process of sending an inspector down to hold an inquiry into the area concerned the same results can be achieved. In addition to saving the authorities a good deal of money, they would also have the consolation of knowing that some person had examined the position on the spot. We on these benches are not anxious to hold up any marketing scheme. We want to expedite that part of the Measure and, therefore, I hope the Minister will see his way to hold such inquiries within the area involved. If the Cornish people regard Exeter as not being in their area, or the Devon people regard Truro as not being in their area, then clearly the words of the Amendment will enable the Minister to determine that it shall be held within the area involved and he will thus give satisfaction to the local authorities. The main point is that it would save sending representatives to London at some cost to local authorities.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not think any sensible Minister of Agriculture or any sensible body of officials would ever hold an inquiry except in the place where it was most convenient for those most concerned. There have been public inquiries all over the country and I have never heard of a complaint that the administration has held them at inconvenient places. Hon. Members seem to think that my illustration about Devon and Cornwall was imperfect. Let me put another point. Suppose there was a livestock markets order for Kent and Surrey and you consulted everyone where the inquiry should be held and it was unanimously decided that it should be held in London to meet the convenience of all parties concerned. It would then be said that it was not local, because the inquiry had not been held in the area to which the livestock market order applied. I do not think the House wants that.

Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister really contemplate making an order covering the whole of Kent and Surrey?

Mr. Morrison: No, I am not contemplating anything, but I am using the argument because it is possible to make such an order. We have to consider these matters in that light. What hon. Members are saying is that they really cannot


trust a Minister or a Government Department to be sensible about this sort of thing and to hold an inquiry where it should be held. They wish to put into the Bill words which would fetter the discretion of the Minister in case there should he an unreasonable Minister who would use his power so as to make a nuisance of himself to everybody concerned. Do hon. Members think that these words would do that? If I had it in mind, as Minister of Agriculture, to torment these people and to put them to inconvenience, if these words were inserted and if there was a public inquiry to be held, I could put them to far more inconvenience than would be involved by making them come to London, for I could direct that the inquiry should be held on a bleak moor. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh because they know that no Minister would be such a fool. Nor would a Minister be such a fool as to hold in London an inquiry into some matter concerning Yorkshire or Durham.
Either hon. Members should accept the view that Ministers will administer this matter in a sensible and reasonable manner because it is to the interests of all concerned that they should do so, or they should try to put much stronger fetters on a Minister's malignity, if they proceed on the other assumption. What I am trying to do is to save hon. Members from themselves in this matter; I am trying to save them from putting words in the Bill which might be a great nuisance to everybody concerned on a future occasion. I hope hon. Members will rest content with my unqualified assurance that in every case where there is an inquiry of local interest, that inquiry will be held in a place which, by the general consent of all concerned, is the most convenient to the local inhabitants.

Mr. Gallacher: Put it in the Bill.

Mr. Morrison: The words proposed would not achieve that purpose. I have given that unqualified assurance to the House, if that is what hon. Members want. Hon. Members must believe me when I say that I tried to find a form of words which could be put in the Bill, because I know the very genuine and proper feelings which exist on this matter, but I could not find any form of words which was suitable. I hope the House and the local authorities will accept my unquali-

fled assurance on this point. That is the policy which I shall certainly follow and which every succeeding Minister will follow. Hon. Members know that these inquiries have been held for years and that there has never been a complaint. If one is legislating, for example, about the alteration of the boundaries of a local authority, one can use the word "local" without fear, because it is bound to be within the area; but here, where we have this rather unmapped territory for which to legislate, the House would be well advised to rest upon my assurance and not to tie itself by words which might cause hardship in the future and prove a nuisance to the very persons we are trying to help.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Do I understand the Minister to mean that it is his definite and avowed intention and purpose that, when objections are lodged and not resolved, and an inquiry takes place, it will be held at all events somewhere within the area concerned?

Mr. Morrison: Even more than that—somewhere within the area involved unless it is more convenient to those concerned to hold it outside.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: In view of the assurance given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 49, line 6, after "or," to insert:
by the occupier of any premises within the said area which are used or appropriated for holding markets in respect of livestock, or by some person carrying on the business of effecting sales by auction on such premises as aforesaid, or.
This Amendment is moved in accordance with an undertaking which I gave in the Standing Committee. It is designed to secure that the market owners and the livestock auctioneers shall be specifically mentioned in the Bill as persons entitled to present a memorial. In our view, as the Bill stands, the regulations mentioned in the Schedule would be sufficient to cover the interests of those persons, but in order to make assurance


doubly sure we propose this Amendment so as to make it clear beyond peradventure that these regulations include the interests of the market owners and the livestock auctioneers, although of course it is inconceivable that the regulations would be so drafted as to ignore them.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to making, confirmation and publication of livestock markets by-laws.)

8.41 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 50, line 15, to leave out from beginning to end of line 18, and to insert:
consider any objections to the by-laws which have been duly made, and may, after holding such inquiries (if any) as he thinks fit, make such modifications in the by-laws as he may, after consultation with the Commission, consider desirable:
Provided that—

(a) where an objection to the by-law's has been duly made by any person appearing to the appropriate Minister to be affected thereby, and has not been withdrawn, the Minister, unless he considers the objection to be frivolous or irrelevant or finless the objection has been met, shall, before taking any further action with respect to the by-laws, direct the holding of an inquiry with respect to the objection and consider the report of the person holding the inquiry; and
(b) if the appropriate Minister decides to make any modifications in the by-laws he shall cause notice of the proposed modifications to be published in such manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected."
The reasons for this Amendment are exactly similar to those which I explained on the Amendment to the Third Schedule, in page 48, line 18. It is merely a continuation of the effort to brim; the Schedules into line.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 50, line 27, leave out paragraph 5.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions with respect to submission and confirmation of slaughter-house schemes and service schemes.)

8.42 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 51, line 14, to leave out "written."
This Amendment and the following Amendments to this Schedule are all of a drafting character.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 51, line 14, leave out "and representations with respect."

In line 15, after "scheme," insert "and representations with respect thereto."

In line 15, after "made," insert "in writing."

In line 17, after "objections," insert "to the scheme."

In line 23, after "objection," insert "to the scheme."

In line 23, leave out "with respect to the scheme."

In line 27, after "frivolous," insert "or irrelevant."

In line 28, leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 29, and insert "objection has been met."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 52, line 7, at the end, to insert:
or any other order under Part IV of this Act being an order which relates to premises in England.
This Amendment and the following Amendments to this Schedule are drafting Amendments to bring the provisions applying to Scotland into line with those applying to England.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 52, line 10, leave out paragraph 3.

In line 23, at the end, insert:
or any other order under Part IV of this Act being an order which relates to premises in Scotland.

In line 26, leave out paragaph 3.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time."
We have had a fairly exhaustive, not to say exhausting examination of the provisions of the Bill, and I think the House will acquiesce in, and in fact welcome, my resolution to deny myself the pleasure of addressing it at length. I move the Third Reading formally, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of


Agriculture will, at the end of the Debate, answer any points which are raised.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House recognises that the better organisation of the livestock industry will be of benefit to the country and to those engaged in the industry, but it cannot assent to the Third Reading of a Bill which also authorises the continued expenditure of a large sum of public money as subsidy to private interests in a time of rising prices, and which fails to ensure that the amount of the subsidy shall be reduced or extinguished as prices and profits increase.
I had hoped that the Minister of Pensions, speaking once more on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, would have had more to say upon the Third Reading of the Bill, but evidently he expects such criticisms of the Bill from this side that he thinks it wise on this occasion to follow the maxim Least said, soonest mended." This Bill is such a mixed grill, it is so full of diversified parts some good, some bad and some indifferent, that, frankly, the Opposition have been in some difficulty as to their attitude towards its Third Reading. Having considered the matter, we feel it our duty not to allow the Bi11 to go through without an expression of our views in the Division Lobby, but we do not wish to vote directly against the Third Reading, and prefer to vote for a reasoned Amendment. In consequence of the way in which the Debates on the later stages of the Bill have been postponed from time to time and the uncertainty as to whether the final stage would be taken to-night, it becomes necessary for me to move a manuscript Amendment. I have supplied a copy of our Amendment to the Minister, and I apologise to other hon. Members of the House for the fact that it is in manuscript form. [An HON. MEMBER: "A very reasonable Amendment."] I must also apologise to my hon. Friends on this side for the short notice which had to be given of the Amendment, and I am glad to note that they are so much in accord with it.
The livestock industry is recognised as a basic and important section of the agricultural industry. There is no section of the House which is not anxious to do its best, according to its lights, in assisting

to put that industry on a sound basis. But when we come to deal with methods of assistance, criticisms begin to arise. In the first place I wish to say that we on this side of the House appreciate the patience and the spirit, if not always the reasonableness, of the Minister of Agriculture in dealing with the Bill throughout the protracted discussions which have taken place upon it. It is only fair to say also that we regard the first part of the Bill, setting up an impartial Livestock Commission, as a vast improvement on some of the arrangements which have been instituted in recent years in connection with marketing schemes and the like. There is, at least, a chance that in this move towards the reorganisation of the industry, a great deal more impartiality will be shown in dealing with the business, than some of us feel has been shown in other marketing schemes. We look with hope to the Commission, and I hope that later on we shall be able to look back with satisfaction on the manner in which it has discharged the task of administering this very important and far-reaching piece of legislation.
When we come to the latter part of the Bill and consider what is happening in connection with the Government's policy of assistance to the industry, then my hon. Friends and I feel that we must disagree strongly with the methods proposed by the Minister for dealing with that matter. This Bill, among other provisions, makes permanent the policy of subsidising the livestock industry by cash payments from the Exchequer. The sum now to be raised may amount to as much as £5,000,000 for the purpose of that subsidy. Incidentally the consumer is to be taxed directly to the extent of ½d. per lb. on some products and per lb. on others in order to provide at least a part of the subsidy fund of £5,000,000. As my hon. Friends have already pointed out in Committee, we feel strongly that even if a case can be made out for a subsidy, to ask the House at this time to vote more or less permanently £5,000,000, irrespective of what the position is now compared with last year or what it is likely to be in the immediate future, is a proposal which ought to have not our support but rather our condemnation.
My hon. Friends have argued all through the proceedings on this Bill that if we gave a subsidy at all it should be given only on the basis of the actual


costings of the production of fat cattle. The Minister in other sections of the Bill has not hestitated to take powers to require from traders and others concerned returns, accounts, particulars, details of all kinds—anything the Commission may feel inclined to ask for—but every request we have made that before the subsidy is paid, there should be some true ascertainment of cost production covering the subsidy period, has met with a blank refusal from the Ministerial benches, as if such a thing was impossible. If it is impossible, I cannot understand how the industry asks for the subsidy. How do they find out that a subsidy is necessary unless they keep some sort of profit and loss account, some sort of detailed account showing how their costings are made up?
I ask the House to look at the facts, not over the whole period of the subsidy but over the last year or two. If we take January, 1925—not so long ago —we find that the price of fat stock then was as low as 32s. 6d. or 32s. 9d. a cwt. which with the 5s. subsidy brought a gross return to the producer of 37s. to 38s. If we take the figures for April, 1937—I have got them rather hurriedly from the "Farmers' Weekly"—we find that, taking such centres as Carlisle, Darlington, Gloucester, Exeter, Ipswich and Norwich, in the week ending 13th April the average price—not the top price—was round about 45s. 6d.

Mr. Turton: Including subsidy?

Mr. Alexander: No, ex subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) tells me that he also found cases—one, I think, at Salisbury—where a price ex subsidy of as much as 51s. was paid for the finest quality. The Government subsidy proposals in this Bill are not confined any more to a flat rate of 5s. It is probably to be commended that they move from a flat rate basis and have done something actually to stimulate the production of the finest quality beef. If, however, you have the finest quality prices being obtained—I will not take the highest price of 51s., but 45s.—and you add 75. 6d. to it, you will get a price return to the producer of something like 52s. 6d. gross. I do not think hon. Members on that side of the House could get up and say that that is the actual cost of production, with a reasonable margin of profit. I should have said

that if you were getting a gross return of 48s. or 49s. you would be making a fair profit. At any rate, when you get into the region of that price it should be incumbent on the industry to prove by actual costings that they are not making an unreasonable profit without this "by and large" arrangement to go on paying out of the public purse reinforced by a direct tax on the poorest class of consumer—those who use imported meat—and without any effective provision for varying that situation.
Under the Wheat Act no one can deny that the farmer has had a great deal of assistance. He has had a heavy subsidy under that Act. At times he was getting a price of 45s. a quarter when the world price was as low as £1 but under that Act, when the world price rises round about that figure, the subsidy disappears automatically. Is it impossible in dealing with such an important section of the industry as livestock, not to have something like a maximum standard price above which there should be no subsidy paid? I cannot believe that that is not possible, nor do I think that the agriculturists as a body are well advised to take any other line than agreeing to such a principle as that if they ask for direct assistance in cash from the State. On these grounds, we feel that we are strongly entitled to enter our protest at this stage at the method which the Government are adopting in arranging the financial assistance to the industry.
I will engage in only one other line of criticism, and I will leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, who has put in so much work on the Bill and has spent so much time on it, to say anything further at the end of the Debate. This scheme is to be bolstered up by the regulation of imports. Some of us have had experience of what that method can be reduced to in the case of bacon. The quota can be used in such a way as to have a vicious effect upon the consumer, but where you get such a vitally important food as meat, subject to both tariff and quota, the effect upon the consumer may in a time of rising world prices be simply devastating. It is a great mistake that carte blanche should be given in a piece of legislation like this for both methods to be applied simultaneously to the actual detriment of the consumer. With regard to the other


provisions of the Bill, I welcome that at tong last—the Government have been a very long time about it—the efforts that the Labour Government had in mind and had intended to carry out from the time it set up the De La Warr Committee to inquire into the principle of central slaughtering, are beginning to bear fruit. The provisions in the Bill, it is true, are only very hesitant and are not as courageous an approach to the subject as ought to be made. Nevertheless, the principle of really trying to organise the hygienic slaughtering of cattle upon a basis which is economic is one to be supported. From that point of view we can say that we support the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will say in what respects he criticises actual methods of organising the central slaughtering arrangement. I repeat that, in moving this reasoned Amendment to the Third Reading, while we find ourselves so much in agreement with many aspects of the Bill, we could not possibly give an unqualified approval to the Third Reading without drawing attention to the ill effects which this method of subsidy without check upon costings is likely to have.

9.2 p.m.

Sir F. Acland: I should like to congratulate the Ministers who have been concerned in the Committee and the Report stages on the good temper that they have shown in the conduct of the business that they had to get through. They have shown, I will not say a disposition to give way, because they have not given way, but they have shown a disposition to listen rather than to talk, and have done their best to make a reasonable case, whether it was for the Amendments they brought forward or for their opposition to Amendments brought forward by other people. On the whole, I think the House has been gentle and generous with them, because there was a great deal more material that could have been brought up to prolong these discussions if hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway and others had been determined to take the Bill in the way they might have done. With regard to the attitude which my friends and I will take on the Third Reading, I gather that we shall probably not get a vote on it. We shall get a vote on the reasoned Amendment, however, and on that I unhesitatingly think that the lines it takes are sound and sensible, and I shall hope

to support it, if it does not come on too late, because I am very tired and want to get home to bed.
There was one thing in my right hon. Friend's speech that I noticed. I am sure that he did not want to put it as a false point because he was so clear in what he was comparing. That was when he compared the prices at one time of the year and prices at another time. He knows as well as I do how dangerous that is. One of the things one hopes this Bill may tend to correct ultimately is what seems to happen now, namely, the flooding of three-quarters of the stock on to our markets about Christmas time, when it is convenient for farmers to sell, while at a time of the year like the present, when beasts can easily be turned out on to grass, there are not many on the market and naturally prices go up. In saying, as we all rejoice to be able to say, that prices are a good deal better now, we are, unfortunately, not saying with any certainty that they will remain anything like as good in a few months' time. Whereas we cannot feel that the livestock industry is out of the wood for certain, we can welcome the improvement and hope for the best. That, surely, justifies the point made by my right hon. Friend that if good times have definitely come, and if there is not to be that rocking back to the low 40's—and, indeed, towards the 30's in the back and—to which we have been accustomed in the last few years, but hopes, of prices keeping to the upper 40's, it is a pity that there is nothing in the Bill which would put the subsidy on a sliding scale according to prices and profits.
We all realise that in the long run the beef trade cannot be kept going by subsidies, but only by quality and output, and if by means of this subsidy we can improve the output of the best stuff, if we can beat the importer at his own game, being helped for a few years by a subsidy, and by that means reverse the tendency towards losing our position in our own markets before the competition of the best standards of imported meat, then, surely, the subsidy will have been justified. It will have been a means of teaching us to hold our own in the matter of quality, the only way in which we can hold our own. We should all be happier about it if that were the basis, rather than that the subsidy should be continued in-


definitely, as is apparently intended, even if the prices go up.
I think that is the only point which I really want to make. It is a good thing, surely, that, learning from past experience, we have got away from a governing body for the industry elected purely by the industry. When the scheme for milk was brought forward I said it could never endure permanently. We have yet to see whether that is so or not, though I am still of that opinion. Also, I think the Government have learned not to try to do too much at once. They are not trying to force anything on the industry even in the name of the industry. I think it is better that the industry should gradually learn that it wants more rather than that we should undertake a big scheme which might go wrong and become unpopular, and thereby make anything in the way of regulation unpopular. One could criticise the fact that many of the things which have been recommended as essential to real marketing schemes by the Commissions and Committees which have gone into this matter have not been adopted in this scheme, but, on the whole, I think it is better to begin more or less in an experimental and moderate way than to make the industry sick, as it might be if we said too definitely, "The only terms on which you can have these subsidies are that you produce a very full and elaborate marketing system."
I believe that a great many of the fears as to old markets being destroyed have been put forward by interested parties, and that we shall not find that this Bill will make a great deal of difference to efficient organisations—a great many of the local markets are thoroughly up to date and efficient—but find only that there will be gradually a moderate amount of reshaping in the light of experience. In particular, of course, we shall gain experience from the experimental slaughter-houses, which I think will be useful. On the whole, then, I think we may say that the Government have learned from past experience in the framing of this Bill, and although I agree that we ought not to have given a permanent subsidy which carries with it no provision for its modification or withdrawal if the position of the industry made it reasonable to withdraw it, which

would have removed from the agricultural industry the reproach of wanting to put itself permanently on the dole, yet I hope and believe that the Bill may do real good, even if it is not revolutionary or likely to do a very great deal all at once.

9.13 p.m.

Major Dorman-Smith: In spite of the speeches we have had from our Ministers, and in spite of the masterly and efficient way in which the Minister of Agriculture has dealt with this Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee, a performance which, I think, has gained admiration from all sides of the House, I am still very doubtful whether this Measure will be capable of fulfilling the purpose which has been put before us. It is obvious that the provisions outlined in the Bill will bring about a betterment in the position of livestock producers, but I am not absolutely satisfied that the Bill will solve the main problem, which is to secure stability of prices. I look upon this Bill as a stage in the development of the permanent policy which the Government will eventually have to produce, and if that is what it is I shall be very glad to support it, but if this is to be their final word, if this is all the livestock producer can ever expect, my opinion will be rather changed.
I take it that we must look upon this Measure as an instalment of the process of economic planning within agriculture. Planning is a very popular pastime among the professional classes at this time—a sort of strip teasing of industry, a stripping it of its initiative and teasing it with subsidies. I do not quite know how long it will continue to be popular. Probably it will be until we who are engaged in industry or in such occupations as agriculture can impose satisfactory marketing schemes upon our professional brothers. A doctors' marketing scheme would be a grand idea, with certain regulations as to when little Liberals and little Conservatives, and especially little Socialists, should come into this world, prescribing the times with certain fines on the producers of the registered product. I can see that we should have a great time there. Until we can do such things as that, I am afraid the professional classes will continue to try to plan industry.
If this is a plan, before it can commend itself to the House those who have made


the plan should be able to say: "We know that for the last year or two things have been bad within this industry; otherwise it would not need a plan. If our plan had been in operation such things could never have happened." It is fair to judge the plan by the standard whether it would have overcome the difficulties which we know and through which we have passed. The problem that faced the planners in this industry was simple: whether the price of fat cattle was so low as to be uneconomic. The main object of the Bill, therefore, must have been to bring about such a betterment of price that prices would become remunerative. One of the main difficulties in considering this Measure is that the Government have never decided upon what level of prices they wanted the industry to arrive at. We do not know the Government's objective in regard to prices. We have often been told that it is impossible to get at the cost of production. know it is difficult, but ii is not impossible. I know the difficulties and what the Minister of Pensions feels about this matter, but I have masses of evidence about the cost of production which would astonish some people. But it is there. From it, one can arrive at a more or less fair price.
If we cannot get an absolutely accurate figure, something which is beyond all shadow of doubt I suggest to the Government that the only thing left to do is to go to those who are engaged in the industry and ask them what their experience tells them is necessary in order to get the industry going. Whether the Government wanted it or not, that advice has been given, and on more than one occasion. The advice was that with feeding stuffs, labour and all those factors which go to make up the cost of production, round about the 1935 figure, that is, about 48s. per cwt., was not an unfair figure to aim at, for fat cattle. I shall be able to produce figures to anybody who would like to make sure that that statement stands examination. That figure of 48s. allowed for the feeder of cattle to pay a fair price to the breeder, a factor which is sometimes left out. When we hear of the lower costs at which we can turn out cattle, the finished article, feeders sometimes forget that they have paid a very low price to the breeder, who has had to suffer very much. That figure of 48s. may have been a fair price in 1935, but during the last four or five

months the cost of feeding stuffs for winter food has gone up tremendously, by about 44 per cent. We are told by our scientific friends that feeding stuffs during the winter represent something like 70 per cent. of the cost of turning out an animal. I have not worked out the cost of fat cattle at the present time, but it is well over 50s., if it is to cover the cost of production. I do not see how the Government can disagree with the figures, because they say that they have nothing to go upon. A Government Department without statistics is likely to find itself without arguments.
I would like to try to examine whether the measures outlined in the Bill would have dealt with the situation through which the industry has passed and whether they give any hope for the future. First of all, there is this subsidy of £5,000,000. I absolutely agree with those who say that the subsidy should not be paid if the price of fat cattle becomes remunerative. No farmer that I know would claim for himself the right to take the money, if his price were good enough and he were able to do without it. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say "Question." Our farmers are not perfect, but they do not claim more than they think they can get. On the last two or three years' figures it can be demonstrated that the £5,000,000 by itself would not have closed the gap between our selling prices and the cost of production; indeed, we are told that in the future probably 50 per cent. of home-grown cattle will get 7s. a cwt. and 50 per cent. 5s. a cwt. for subsidy. That is the arrangement for the future.
In 1935, the average price paid for cattle was 33s. 3d. per cwt. Under the new subsidy arrangements, 50 per cent. of those cattle would have made 41s. 9d. That would be a loss of about £3 per beast; and the other 50 per cent. would have made 39s. 3d., a loss of about £4 per beast. In 1936 the average price for the 12 months was just about 36s., which leaves a very big gap between the cost of production and our selling price. In the first three months, when we had this rising cost of production, the price was round about 37s., a welcome rise, but I do not think that figure anywhere near covered our cost of production. The subsidy does not stand by itself. There are other measures. There is, first of all, the tax on foreign meat, which has been


mentioned. That tax has been in existence for nearly five months, and who is paying for it is still an extremely—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that tax was imposed by another Act of Parliament and that it is not to be imposed by this Bill.

Major Dorman-Smith: I bow to your Ruling, but the tax was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander); he was talking about it, and I was going to try to show that the cost of beef has not gone up like the cost of other commodities, and that farmers cannot expect very much from that tax. Under this Bill—I think it is under this one—machinery is to be set up for the restriction and control of imports. That matter has also been mentioned. We have the Empire Council and the Imperial Meat Conference, but I suggest that they represent a very limited amount of help. The work of that Council and Conference must be circumscribed by the terms of the Argentine Agreement, that there can be no bigger cut than 2 per cent. in any one year or 5 per cent. over three years. If we are to try to control imports, that 5 per cent. cut in the control cannot do all that we want it to do. I cannot imagine that the Government are going to try to impose on the Dominions more cuts than they have agreed to impose on the Argentine, and, therefore, if we get a global 5 per cent. it would not get us much below the Ottawa year figures, which started the rot and made this planning necessary. Indeed, all that the Government have said about that in their White Paper is that it would be proposed that, unless agreed otherwise, aggregate imports during the next three years should not exceed recent levels. I very much doubt whether by the time we have had the Imperial Conference these recent levels are going to be cut down at all.
Finally, we have the internal arrangements, and I would very much like the Minister to give us some indication of the amount which he thinks the marketing arrangements, central slaughtering and so on will amount to per cwt. to the home producer. I have very slender hopes as to the actual cash benefit we are going to

get. That brings us back to the fact that if we are to look for any real improvement we are thrown back on the increased prosperity which the country is enjoying and the increased purchasing power in the hands of consumers. If we are cast back on that, it really is going back to the old idea of supply and demand and is a most disgraceful betrayal of the new economic planning. If we have to look forward to years of increased prosperity and increased prices there was no need to have all the fuss of getting this Bill through. We might rely on our old methods.
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how far the rise in prices is liable to go. He told us that we could look forward to this rise in prices, and that we were coming out of the trough on to the top of the wave. How far are we going, and for how long may we look for this prosperity? Has he been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find out whether his right hon. Friend is going to keep up this increased purchasing power and for a long time? I doubt whether that can be, and I rather think that Ministers are patting themselves on the back and thinking that they have had a lucky break over this Bill and had a rise in prices, for, if they had not had it, this Bill would have looked very poor as far as the producers are concerned. This Bill cannot be said to fulfil the hopes which the various White Papers of the Government made the farmers of the country believe might be realised. The Minister of Pensions said that we did not know what would happen in the future. We have a rise in prices now, but there is no security and we have no idea what may happen to meat prices when the Coronation crowds, who are eating beef like nothing on earth, have gone, and so on. There are no new factors to make things better.
Will the Minister give us his assurance that if in fact we do get back to such a condition as we have experienced in the last two years and he finds that the provisions of this Bill do not meet the needs of the industry, he will without hesitation come to the House and take steps which will finally resolve the difficulties of the industry? If he will give us that promise I say, as far as I can speak for farmers, that we shall be delighted to tell him when prices have become more re-


munerative and we no longer need a subsidy. If we cannot have that assurance, if we cannot know that the Government are really serious to resolve the problems of this industry, then we shall have to come to the conclusion that there is just one Latin quotation which does rather sum up the attitude of the Government, and perhaps of the House in some other quarters. I apologise for it, but the Minister of Pensions started it, if you may remember, in his Second Reading speech, with a quotation which be translated roughly as "If only the farmers knew what was good for them, all would be well." They will feel sic vos, non vobis, mellificatus apis.

9.32 p.m.

Sir Malcolm Barclay-Harvey: We have now come to the last stage of this extremely important Bill, and those who have been on the Committee and have sat through the Report stage can say that, while our fears—which I quite share with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—are by no means fully allayed, the Bill will leave this House a better Bill and the Minister, by some of his declarations, has cleared the air, and there is a much better understanding. Many of the fears which were expressed when the Bill was first introduced have been proved to be comparatively groundless. The two chief features from the industry's point of view are the powers which we are giving to the Board of Trade to regulate imports and the subsidy. During the course of the Debates one might have thought from the speeches of hon. Members opposite that the Board of Trade or the Government have been cutting down imports of beef from all over the world. That is fallacious. Since 1932, the year of the Ottawa Agreements—I am talking now in calendar years, and not agricultural years—there has been an increase of something like 600,000 cwts. of beef in the course of a year. In 1936, 600,000 cwts. more of beef were imported than in 1932, and in the first quarter of this year I believe I am right in saying that the imports are the highest they have ever been.
That shows that, unless the Government and the Board of Trade are going to take rather a different line than in the past, we need not fear any drastic cuts. I hope that the new Commission are going to deal with this, and that they will deal

with it not only from the point of view of the consumers but from that of the producers. When hon. Members talk about the interests of the consumers—and I am just as much interested in the interests of the consumers as they are—they should remember that it is as much in the interests of the consumers as of anybody that the livestock industry should be maintained, and you can only maintain it if you give remunerative prices. I do not think anyone will disagree that it would be a first-class disaster for this country if we were to become entirely dependent on foreign supplies of beef. It is vital to us, not only in time of war but in time of peace, that we should be able to draw on our own home supplies.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) referred to the fact that we have to stand on quality, but quality costs money, and, while it is true to say that we have to maintain our quality, it is equally true that we cannot maintain our quality unless we can get a price which will make it remunerative. One of the reasons why there has been a deterioration in quality is undoubtedly the fact that during the last few years the prices obtained for best quality cattle have been too low to make it worth while to bring them up to the necessary high condition. Therefore, while I agree that we have to improve our quality, that alone will not put the cattle industry on its feet. Unfortunate though it may be, we cannot expect to see large cuts, and nobody wants to see large cuts, in imports, so we have to look to the subsidy as the main means of help.
I agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said; I do not believe that this subsidy is going to fill the gap. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was anxious to get costing, because he thought it would show that the £5,000,000 was in fact not necessary. I should like to see costs obtained, though I know how difficult it is, and I am not going to press very much for it, but for exactly the opposite reason to that of the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that I believe we should find that the £5,000,000 is not sufficient for our present requirements. The Minister has referred to the rise in costs, and I have some figures here which have been prepared, not by farmers, but by the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. They exhibit a complete statement


of what happened in the case of six beasts that were brought up from the time when they were weaned until they were sold in March of this year. In the case of those six animals, the average cost per cwt. of live weight gain varied from £2 8s. Id. to £3 os. 5d., and the net result of the whole transaction was a loss to the seller, taking into account the amount he received for subsidy, of £27 6s. Id. That is only a small instance, but I think it shows that, so far from not requiring the subsidy, we certainly do need it, because, although prices may be rising now, and we are very glad to see it, at the same time we are coming out of a period when farmers were actually making losses on the sale of their cattle, and they are now hoping that this subsidy will at least enable them to keep level.
One important point is that they have not during the last few years been able to put sufficient into their land to maintain it in a state of fertility, and we should never forget that, should the land be called upon suddenly for a large increase in production, it would not, if it remains in its present state, be able to meet that demand. I am by no means convinced that this £5,000,000 will be sufficient to meet our needs. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that there is not a farmer who would not willingly forgo the subsidy if he could get an economic price. I have talked with many farmers in my constituency, and there is not one who does not say, "We do not want subsidies; we want to make a living by getting a remunerative price for what we produce," There is not one who would not willingly give up the subsidy if he could get a remunerative price, but they have not been getting remunerative prices for all these years. I do not believe that this Bill will meet the difficulties. The Minister of Pensions, in his Second Reading speech, quoted a passage from the Scriptures. He referred to the Book of Proverbs. I would like to give him another quotation, from Ecclesiastes:
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.
A good many of us feel that, as regards the livestock industry, the Government have found something to do, but that they are not doing it with their might. That is the long and the short of our

criticism of this Bill, and it is because of that that we are very doubtful whether it will have the thoroughly beneficial effects that the Government anticipate.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: Listening to the views of the hon. Member who has just sat down and of the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Major Dorman-Smith), I began to wonder why we have spent so many valuable weeks of our time in considering this Bill from the National Government. Both hon. Members speak with some authority for the agricultural community, particularly the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield, who occupies a premier position in a representative organisation of that industry. And yet both of them have condemned this Bill as being in their opinion no effective remedy for the condition of the livestock industry. Both of them have advanced very powerful reasons for our Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield has acknowledged in the House to-night that there is no difficulty in the way of ascertaining the cost of production—

Major Dorman-Smith: I did say that it was difficult, but not impossible.

Mr. Barnes: We all recognise that it must be difficult, considering that the cost of production must necessarily vary in different areas; but it has been admitted that it is not impossible, and one Could have wished that that evidence had been forthcoming during the Committee and Report stages when we were trying to embody the ascertainment of costs of production as part of the constructive advantages of the Bill. The whole burden of the two speeches to which we have just listened is that the farmers require a remunerative price. Everyone desires a remunerative price for the products of his labour or his efforts, but I fail to see how Parliament can at any stage meet the problem of a remunerative price until that price is disclosed for legislative enactment, and it is perfectly futile for representatives of the agricultural industry to come to the House of Commons and plead for a remunerative price while at the same time they resist the efforts of a Committee of the House to provide for the ascertainment of the standard upon which the remunerative price is to be based. Therefore, I consider that very substantial


arguments have been advanced for our Amendment.
I should like to state my reasons for supporting the Amendment, and I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we state our reasons briefly, and do not augment them by argument. My first point of objection to the Bill is that the cost of the subsidy which will be paid to livestock producers is derived from the poor consumers of imported meat in this country, and is not a direct charge upon the State. One can always either disagree or agree, as the case may be, with the principle of a subsidy, but, whether we agree or disagree with the principle of aiding any particular industry by a subsidy, I do not consider that there should be any difference at all on the point that the subsidy should represent a direct charge on the revenues of the State, and that, therefore, its incidence should fall according to the principles upon which the Budget is determined from year to year.
My second point of objection is to Clause 3, which gives power to the Board of Trade to impose restrictions on imports for the purpose of forcing up prices. I think the agricultural community is making a very grave mistake in supporting a policy of that character. In the first place, it cuts right across the ultimate and permanent solution for the whole industry, which at times peeps through the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield. I always find myself moving in sympathy with him when he expresses the view that ultimate prosperity depends upon the purchasing power of the home market. If it does, it is wrong to commence a policy which is going to alienate the vast mass of industrial opinion, upon which permanent legislation in the long run must depend for its continuity. It is doubly wrong at present, because we are moving into a period in which prices are rising, not as the result of any normal stimulus to industry by economic purchasing in the markets of the country or of the world. The prices are uneconomic, and they are being stimulated in an artificial way because of the huge sums that are being thrown into the market as the result of armaments expenditure. If on top of that we are to have these restricting policies and an artificial rise in the prices

of primary foodstuffs and other commodities, it is inevitable that a period of deflation will follow this period of inflation and the position of the agricultural community will be worse in the long run than the position from which we have emerged, because there is a growing body of opinion which for a variety of reasons desires to see British agriculture on a firm, stabilised foundation, provided it is not secured, on the one hand, by exploitation of the consumers, or, on the other, by a policy of doles from the State.
My third point of criticism is embodied in the Amendment. If the State is to pay a subsidy to any industry, there should be some automatic brake on the payment, and, unless payment is to be regulated by price in this instance, I fail to see how you can have an effective brake. No industrial organisation would pay into any part of its business an uncontrolled sum of this kind unless it imposed some automatic brake of that character. In our Amendment we endeavour to establish that very reasonable principle. We cannot help contrasting the attitude of members of the Conservative party when it comes to the payment of a dole to wealthy interests with their attitude when it is a question of the payment of any form of relief to persons in more or less a state of destitution. They insist upon their means test and other regulations for the purpose of insuring the brake on the payment of any form of public assistance, and this payment of subsidy to the livestock industry is a form of public assistance and there should be a brake in the form of a standard price
My fourth objection is the inequity of practice when it comes to payment of compensation. Compensation is paid to every property or professional interest affected by the Bill, but for those who are displaced by the reorganisation proposals and lose their employment there is no compensation. In my view that is inequitable, immoral and unjust. My final point of objection is that in the representation of interests on the Livestock Commission the Government refused our reasonable request that consumers' organisations, like the Co-operative movement, which is the most representative body of consumers in the country, and which has a wider knowledge of this industry than almost any other section represented on the Advisory Committee, should be given


representation. The Bill is so constructed as carefully to preserve vested interests that to some extent I share the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field that it is cumbersome in its operation and is not likely to achieve the object that we have in mind. I hope, therefore, that we shall soon be able to remove this bungling and doling Government and replace it by one which can plan for the future.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Tree: I want to offer my very sincere congratulations to the Minister on the way in which he has handled the Bill. It is an extremely complicated Measure. He inherited it, and had only a few days in which to master it, but his complete mastery of it has reassured many who had doubts about the way in which it would work out. I think the doubts of producers and distributors would be removed, and they would join in the reorganisation of the industry in a much happier frame of mind, if they felt that, when they had reorganised, the return that they would get would be adequate to pay them for the reorganisation. If they find that prices do not tend to improve after the reorganisation, they will have a very legitimate grievance. Whether the Bill succeeds or not is entirely in the hands of the Government. I believe that representatives of the meat exporting countries are at present sitting in London, and all who want the Bill to be a success will pray that they will see that imports are restricted, not only because we feel that the Bill will be a great advance in the Government's agricultural policy, but because it is the first Bill of a Minister whom we want to see as Minister of Agriculture for a very considerable period. In the Committee the Minister gave a verbal promise that he would see that in future the markets would not be flooded out at any given period. There has been considerable criticism in the past that at a time when home-grown beasts were just coming on to the market there has been released out of storage a great quantity of imported beef. Under Clause 12 the Board of Trade is given full power to ascertain how much meat is in storage at any given time, and we all hope they will use those powers to the very fullest extent.
By and large throughout the country everyone is pretty well satisfied with the way that grading is done in the local markets. I have heard a good deal of criticism about the way in which the area grading is done by the inspectors and supervisors. At the present time there are six full-time inspectors and 29 part-time supervisors. To each of them is allotted an area, and it is up to them to see that the markets in their area are up to standard, also that there is adequate grading in those markets; but the criticism that I have heard is that the grading varies very considerably in different areas. The suggestion that I would make is that when the meat Commission is appointed, it should appoint a definite number of full-time inspectors and that those inspectors should be moved about from area to area. In that way they would see that there was a definite standard established throughout the country. I realise that the difficulty they may meet with will be the difficulty of finding a sufficient number of inspectors fully qualified to carry out this job, because it is a highly technical one, but, given time, I am sure that they will be able to do that and that it will remove one grievance which is frequently expressed.
My second point is in relation to the Clauses which deal with the central slaughter-houses. All of us who are interested in the industry fully realise that not only is a form of rationalisation necessary, but that it is a long way over due. The reason that so much foreign meat is consumed in this country is not only because it is cheaper, but also because it is of a high quality and of a permanent standard quality. Therefore, we are in favour of a scheme of central slaughterhouses and want to make that scheme a success. The only point at issue is the doubt expressed in many quarters as to how these central slaughter-houses should be worked. As I understand it, it is proposed in the Bill that the central slaughter-houses shall be constructed and worked by the local authorities, and that the wholesale butchers will come in and use the central slaughter-houses for all their killing. In order that there shall be an adequate provision of this absolute essential, if the scheme is going to work, there shall be two zones of control, an inner zone and an outer zone. In the inner zone the beasts will compulsorily


be slaughtered in the central slaughterhouse, and in the outer zone most of the beasts will be sent to the central slaughterhouse. In other words, throughout that area there will be a method of compulsion on the butcher and there is a good deal of resentment about this fact.
In the report of the technical committee on abattoir design, on page 41, the suggestion was made that these central slaughter-houses should be leased by the local authority to a slaughter-house and by-product company, who would have powers to buy in the open market. I inclined very much to the view that such a public utility company, with powers to buy in the open market, would have the effect of removing from people's minds the idea that they were under any form of compulsion. Butchers would be able to kill either at home or at the central slaughter-houses and it would not take a very long time for the public to realise that the meat passing through the central slaughter-house was so much better and the butcher would be forced by custom and not by compulsion to kill in the slaughter-house. It is to be hoped that when the Commission come to this point they will give it due consideration, because I believe it would have the effect of removing from many people's minds the doubts that they have about the efficacy of carrying out this scheme.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: The Clauses of the Bill have been well argued, but it is true that we have not induced the Minister to adopt certain of our recommendations. We can, however, congratulate him on his good temper as a new Minister of Agriculture and perhaps sympathise with him a little in having to face a very complicated Measure such as this. As one who has been interested in this matter for a good many years I, like others, have been looking forward to the Government bringing in a comprehensive Livestock Bill. While the present Measure does not at all satisfy us, we can say that it is an instalment towards the better production and marketing of beef in this country. I am extremely sorry that the Minister has not been able to see his way to concede our wishes in regard to including a standard price in the Measure. I think that vitiates the first part of the Bill in such a way that the Amendment which has been moved is perfectly justified.
I want particularly to refer to that part of the Bill which deals with the centralised slaughter-houses. Everyone who has studied this question realises that centralised slaughtering is necessary. It has tremendous advantages from the hygienic and business point of view. These advantages are exemplified by some of the great abattoirs which have been erected in the country. These abattoirs provide a unit for inspection and they also provide the local authority with opportunities that cannot be given to them when they have to go, say, to 100 or 150 slaughterhouses in a city. That is where I disagree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. There can be no doubt that the advantages of centralised slaughter have been proved over and over again by the experience of the great abattoirs which already exist.
There is one aspect which has not been much emphasised during the Report stage or up to the present time in the Third Reading Debate, and that is the part that the local authorities will play in the centralised slaughter-houses. I want the Minister thoroughly to appreciate the fact that local authorities will have to make sacrifices. It is true that they may be the nominee for one of these great centralised slaughter-houses but, on the other hand, if the general principle is applied all over the country after the experiments have been successful it will mean that a large measure of rationalisation will be brought into the slaughtering of animals, and that will have the effect of closing possibly hundreds of local authority slaughter-houses all over the country. From that point of view I want the Minister to appreciate that the local authorities possibly stand to lose more than any vested interest covered by the operations of the Bill.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Member tell us how much. Sheffield has made out of centralised slaughter-houses?

Mr. Marshall: It is not a question of Sheffield, but I could give a very clear exposition of what Sheffield has done in the matter. I am very proud of their achievement. If the Minister will only take my advice and go to Sheffield to get his experience he will find that it will be very helpful to him. Markets that possibly have had a charter for 500 years will be closed. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is really


a very serious matter for these very small local authorities who will have their markets closed. But they take a very reasonable view of this proposal. They realise that rationalisation ought to come about in the industry, and from that point of view I think local authorities generally in the way they have regarded the introduction of this Bill are to be congratulated on their reasonableness and the way they have accepted it. We shall look forward with very great interest to this experiment, and I can only hope that when the Commission is set up it will deal with experimental slaughter-houses in a bold and courageous way and not be cowed by the tremendous vested interests existing in the trade. It may be, if they will do that, that the money due to be spent under the provisions of the Bill will give to the Minister an experience and knowledge of the livestock industry that will make the expenditure of the money justifiable. I look upon this part of the Bill as most valuable from the consumers' point of view, and I shall be pleased to give that part my support, but on the other part I have no option but to go into the Lobby against the Government on the question of standard prices.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Amendment tabled, as we have seen from the speeches, contains two points, and they are quite separate. The one is that hon. Members object to a subsidy being paid to a private interest in a time of rising prices; that is quite distinct from the second point, which is that they object to a subsidy, which, if I may summarise in my own words, has no relation to selling price and cost of production. I observed that an hon. Friend below the Gangway supported the second of these criticisms, but not the first. If the Amendment had contained only the second change, and if it had been practically possible to bring that about, I think we should have found a considerable measure of support in this House for the proposition. But an Amendment which contains the first statement, namely, that there should be no subsidy, is one which the present Government and this House cannot possibly accept; certainly as a representative of an agricultural division I cannot approve of it. What the party opposite are in fact saying to the country is this: "If we were in power

we would remove this cattle subsidy." But that is not what the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) says. He speaks from personal knowledge and experience in this matter, and he agreed in the course of his speech to-night that the subsidy must continue. The hon. Member said that in his opinion a subsidy would be necessary because he did not see prices rising sufficiently to make farming profitable.

Mr. Price: I did not say that. I said that at present farming is not in such a position.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member went further than that. I took down his words. He said he did not anticipate that prices would rise in the immediate future. That shows that the Opposition in moving this Amendment are not dealing with practical politics. The only Member of the party who has taken part in the Debate and speaks with first-hand knowledge condemns the Amendment, and that seems to me sufficient reason for this House voting against it. I had intended to deal with another matter at some length, but on account of the lateness of the hour I shall refer to it only briefly. The last speaker dealt with the question of livestock markets. When this Bill was introduced I had considerable fears on that score. I do not particularly love the new Livestock Commission even yet, but I am bound to confess that, after examining the matter very closely in Committee, and penetrating the mind of the Minister, some of my worst apprehensions have been removed, and for that I pay tribute to the courtesy and reasonableness of my right hon. Friend. He has removed from my shoulders a considerable anxiety. But while we cannot at this stage do anything to alter or amend the Commission's powers, I think we are entitled to express the views of the House as to the methods which the Commission, when appointed, should adopt in exercising those powers.
Part IV of the Bill is based upon the argument that there is great redundancy of markets to-day, and everybody accepts that. One thousand cattle markets are far too many. The object is to reduce their number and so bring about efficiency. There are two ways of doing that. There is, first of all, the negative way, for which there is a considerable number of Clauses making the necessary


provisions in the Bill, that is to say, the method of closing down markets, such as the hon. Member criticised recently. It would be a long process, it would be an expensive process, and it would raise a great deal of opposition. But there is another way and I hope the Commission will adopt this alternative. It is what one might call the constructive method. The Commission should direct their main attention not so much to reducing and destroying markets, as to building up new and efficient markets to take the place of the old. That is the way in which all industries proceed. It is by making its service attractive to customers that every great industry in this country has succeeded.
It was because we adopted precisely that methd in Scotland that our marketing system for cattle is so much better than in most parts of England. We there created large, modern, efficient cattle markets. Not only was that done in Scotland; I will give the House an example of a similar proceeding in England, and not very far away from London. I happened to be in the district at the time when the big market at Banbury was formed about 10 or 11 years ago. In that district, as I saw then, you had a glaring example of the most antiquated methods of marketing livestock. There was no place under which cattle or people could gather. In the rain or in the sun, they stood in rows along the street. But about that time a new market was started and it has been a great success. It was built on the model of the most up-to-date market North of the Tweed, naturally enough it is managed by a Scotsman—but that is incidental. I want to give the House some facts about this market. I have no personal interest in it whatsoever and I merely refer to it as an example of what the Commission could do. I am told that in Banbury district there were six small markets before that particular market was established. All of them have now disappeared. No bureaucratic powers were used to remove redundancy, nothing but the progress of efficiency. The stock turnover of that market has multiplied one hundredfold in the last 10 years, again through the sheer efficiency of the organisation. The financial turnover has multiplied 32 times, by sheer financial efficiency, and that despite very great initial difficulties. I asked a leading farmer in the Banbury district what had

been the effect of this new market, not upon auctioneers but upon farming; had it been helpful? This is the answer he gave me:
The general effect of establishing an efficient market in Banbury is distinctly to the advantage of farming in this district. I can perhaps best illustrate this by quoting what one of our most progressive and successful farmers told a deputation from another area who visited the market. He was asked almost exactly the same question as you have asked me by a member of the deputation. His reply was, 'I reckon that Banbury Market has done more good to the farmers in this neighbourhood than all the other schemes put together, and it has put more money into the pockets of the local farmers.'
I beg this Livestock Commission that is to be, to take an example and to learn a lesson from the business of livestock marketing in Scotland, and from cases like Banbury in England, and to put the emphasis of their work, upon the constructive building-up side, creating two or three hundred first-class, efficient markets rather than destroying 200 or 300 inefficient ones. That is how industry succeeds. It is the only method by which you can bring about an up-to-date marketing system for agriculture and livestock farming.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: This is about the 27th sitting we have had upon this Bill, and I am glad that we are nearing the close of our discussions upon it. After some six years of examination and experiment, it has fallen to the right hon. Gentleman to introduce, at long last, the long-term policy of the Government for agriculture. Unless events move in a direction quite opposite from the present tendency, I am afraid that, in a very short time, the permanent policy of the Government will have to be revised. The price movement is such that the policy of the Government, as embodied in Part VII of this Measure, will to some extent have to be revised within a very short time. There are parts of the Bill with which Members sitting in all parts of the House will agree. We agree, for instance, with the setting up of the Agricultural Commission. We think that the Livestock Advisory Committee, heavily loaded in favour of vested interests, might also render useful service to the agricultural industry.
We, therefore, welcome those parts of the Bill that have a constructive intention and purpose, whether that be marketing


re-organisation, slaughtering re-organisation, or any one of the service schemes referred to in Part VI. But there are other proposals in the Bill which we are bound to criticise, and which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) truly said, justifies hon. Members who sit on these benches in voting against the Third Reading. Although one takes for granted that the marketing re-organisation proposals will ultimately produce good for the industry —the hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field (Major Dorman-Smith) is not too optimistic even about that—we are not at all sanguine that the slaughtering proposals will be as useful as they would have been if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the step that we advised him to take on the Second Reading, in Committee and on the Report stage. If you cripple and limit facilities for experimental slaughter-houses you will militate against their eventual success, and to that extent we offer a certain amount of criticism against the Measure.
With regard to marketing and slaughtering, the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) said that we have arranged compensation for landowners, for market owners, for slaughterhouse owners and for auctioneers and municipal employés, but that no provision has been made for the ordinary employé who may be dismissed by the making of a marketing scheme or a slaughter-house scheme. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will regret the speech he made last night when he told us about the free play between employer and employed, and discriminated between the private employé and the employé of a local authority. If there is to be any discrimination at all with regard to compensation between a person employed by a local authority and a person employed by a private employer then, quite clearly, the private employé ought to be the one for whom compensation should be provided. In 999 cases out of a thousand the local authority employé who is displaced is quickly absorbed by some other authority, whereas the private employé very often has no alternative occupation, and is left stranded. During the discussion yesterday I said that we on this side of the House are not anxious to give compensation to persons who are displaced. We do not think it is a good

policy, whether it is a local authority employé or a private employé. What we stand for is the right of all men to work, and if one is displaced it should be the duty of the State to see that another job is waiting for him almost immediately.
The third point of criticism is obviously the question of the subsidy. The right hon. Gentleman has advised hon. Members not to take too much notice of the recent increase in the price of beef. He referred to the increased cost of feeding stuffs and steers and told us that the spring prices were slightly higher, year by year, but that we ought not to take that as something which is likely to be permanent. He said that he could not base a permanent policy on a temporary movement in prices. I suggest that on 22nd April, 1936, right at the top of the Spring high prices, the price per cwt. of beef was 39s. 1d. This year it was 44s. 6d., or an increase of a little more than the present subsidy we are paying per cwt. for cattle. Therefore, the rise this year, although the price is inadequate to meet the full costs of production, is certainly 5s. 5d. per cwt. more than it was on the same date last year. The rise is exceptional and is consistent with the all-round rise in prices that is taking place. That being the case, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not taking this increase, nor did we yesterday take the temporary increases, as our line of attack and as our justification for opposing the Third Reading of this Bill. What we have said from the commencement has been that we want to know what it costs to produce 1 cwt. of livestock. The Minister said it would be extremely difficult to get an average price, but the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield, speaking for the National Farmers' Union, while admitting the difficulty, declared that it was not insurmountable, and that if the Government really wanted to get samples of costings all over the country, they could obtain them.
We have stated that if we have the costs and the market prices before us and we find that there is a difference between the two, we would not be averse to providing the requisite subsidy in order to make the production of beef a paying proposition. To that extent I entirely agree with the observations of the hon. Member who spoke before me. Hon. Members opposite cannot argue that the Labour party is in any way opposed to


the provision of a subsidy as long as that subsidy can be justified on the basis of ascertained facts, which would enable us to determine whether the subsidy is right or not. We have taken that view from the beginning. The right hon. Gentleman said that beef producers had passed through a very bad period; he had no figures to satisfy him whether they had lost £10,000,000 or £50,000,000, but taking their word for it, they had passed through a very bad period and the rise in prices over a period of three months would not compensate for all that they had lost in the past.
Hon. Members on these benches appreciate that, and the rise in prices is no less welcomed on this side of the House than on the other; but it is a tendency which the Government have to face. In Clause 36 of this Bill the Government set out to make an annual provision of £5,000,000 for subsidising fat cattle, but there is no provision, whatever the price may be for a reduction or for the withdrawal of the subsidy. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield has apparently moved from the old philosophy of the law of supply and demand; he cannot afford to rely upon the old law of supply and demand because spending power is not available to the people of this country and they are not able to buy at an economic price the fat cattle that go on to the market. Our point is clear. If a subsidy on the basis of ascertained facts can be justified, we are willing to agree to the provision of the necessary money to enable it to be paid, although if we had our choice, instead of subsidising producers as we have done since 1934, I am not sure that we would not adopt a different policy and subsidise the consumers who, through low wages or small incomes, find it impossible to buy the best British beef. The time is not far distant when some Government will have to change the policy of subsidising producers into a policy of subsidising consumers or would-be consumers who cannot afford to pay a price which would be an economic price for the farmer. Last year the farmers, no matter how much they were losing, put on to the markets of this country 369,000 head of cattle more than went on to the market in 1934. If they were losing millions, why were they anxious to put all those cattle on the market?

Sir J. Lamb: They could not afford to hold them any longer.

Mr. Williams: If they put all those cattle on to the market in 1936, how does the hon. Member account for the fact that in the first 17 weeks of this year they have landed on the market 12,000 head of cattle more than in the corresponding period of last year?

Mr. Turton: Because it has taken nine months to get a calf.

Mr. Williams: But the hon. Member and his friends have been telling the House and the country that the farmers have no money with which to breed or to feed stock. Apparently, however, they have more stock to-day than ever, and are landing more cattle on to the market than they did in 1936, which was almost a record year in the last 20 or 3o years. When this Bill was introduced the average price of first quality was 37s. 4d. per cwt. Last week it was 44s. 6d. There is a difference of 7s. 2d. per cwt. If 7s. 6d. per cwt. in January was the appropriate figure to make the production of beef economic, the only subsidy required to-day would be 4d. per cwt., but under the Bill, notwithstanding that increase in price, the subsidy is to be 7s. 6d. I do not deny that the 7s. 6d. may be justifiable but neither the Minister nor anyone else, has justified it by any figures. That is the fundamental point. The right hon. Gentleman told us earlier, when informing us that we ought not to treat these temporary increases as final, definite or permanent that if we went back to 1927 to 1931, including the period of the Labour Government—I suppose that was why that period was selected—the average price then was 50s. 5d. per live cwt. At this moment the average price is 44s. 6d., unless there has been an increase this week, and 44s. 6d. plus 7s. 6d. comes to 52s. That is 1s. 7d. per cwt. more than the average price for 1927–1931 quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. There, again, it may be that the 52s. is justifiable but no figures have been supplied in its justification.
Looking at the Bill as a whole, I feel justified in the stand I have taken from the first. We welcome the setting up of the Commission, the appointment of the Livestock Advisory Committee and any good that may accrue from marketing and slaughtering organisations. We regret, however, that further powers should be given to the Board of Trade


to restrict imports of beef and veal. We think that the subsidy proposals can be justified only on the basis of costs and of a standard price. While we are as anxious to help agriculture as any hon. Member sitting on those benches, we are placed in the position in which any other Opposition would be placed. We have to face the position as we see it, and if it contains a serious defect from the national point of view, we have to protest in the only way left to an Opposition by going into a Division Lobby. I have, therefore, no compunction in voting against the Bill. I have a thousand farmers in my division, a large number of them being beef producers, and they are as anxious to make a living as farmers in Aberdeen or anywhere else. I am anxious to see them prosperous, but I am not prepared at the expense of the State and of a sound principle to vote for subsidies where they have not been justified on the basis of facts and figures or on the basis of any logical case that has been made out. For those reasons I shall certainly support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: We have now come to the end of our labours on this very extensive Measure, and, before I pass to the more controversial topics, I hope the House will permit me to express my personal thanks to hon. Members, both of the Standing Committee and of the House, for their help and criticisms in the difficult task of dealing with this Bill. The Bill has been difficult for one or two reasons. It has broken a lot of new ground. For many of its provisions no precedents were in existence, and it was extremely difficult in drafting the Bill to imagine all the practical difficulties and criticisms which might arise when the Bill was subjected to the survey of the House. When one considers the strangeness of the task that confronted us, one can only marvel that the words used in the original draft were so near to the final purpose as they have been. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) moved the Amendment to the Third Reading. In agriculture we are accustomed to talk of dual-purpose cattle. Those are cattle which are good for both meat and milk. I think that I would not be far off if I were to describe the

Amendment as a dual-purpose Amendment. It combines in a charming manner both approval and opposition, and while it undoubtedly contains the brawn and muscle of direct opposition to the proposals of the Bill, it is tempered with the milk of human kindness in that it realises that the measures of reorganisation are not so far from the mark as they might be.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) suggested, perhaps lightheartedly, that we ought to approach the subject of beef prices and the prosperity of the industry by way of a subsidy to consumers. I do not know how far the hon. Gentleman would intend to carry out that proposition, but I do not propose to follow him to-night too closely on what was perhaps more a question of administration than a definite statement of policy. His remark about the consuming side is a valuable one, because it brings out how interdependent town and country are upon each other, and, quite apart from a subsidy to consumers, I have no doubt that one cause, at least, of the recent improvement in the prices of fat cattle is the rising tide of prosperity in the towns which has been brought about largely by the policy of His Majesty's Government. If the Government are not providing a direct subsidy for consumers, I think I can claim that they are providing a subsidy in the form of work and wages which has a powerful stimulating effect on consumption and has reacted favourably on the prices of fat cattle.
The right hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to this subsidy as a semi-permanent one. I do not see how anything can be semi-permanent. It is either permanent or impermanent. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) had the same point of criticism against the proposals. He seemed to imagine that we were commiting ourselves to a subsidy in perpetuity. If the right hon. Gentleman brings his attention to bear further upon the Bill, and reads Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 and the statements in the White Paper, I think he will find it is made abundantly clear that the figure of £5,000,000 puts at its maximum the sum which Parliament can vote in a year for this purpose, and that the subsidy will be regulated in accordance with market conditions and the requirements of the industry.
The real quarrel is not against the subsidy itself; the quarrel is that we should be daring to give any assistance to this branch of the agricultural industry without having first ascertained the cost of production of fat cattle. That is really the kernel of the dispute between us, I ask hon. Members to reflect whether that criticism is really a reasonable one. They have been told time and time again that the main difficulty which confronts any researcher in the endeavour to ascertain the cost of production of cattle is that cattle are valuable not only in themselves but for the effect they have on the fertility of a farm. I think this clamour for an ascertainment of the cost of production of fat cattle arises, if I may say so with respect, from a false analogy drawn between agriculture and industry.
In industry the operations are specified. The raw material is of an ascertained character and supply. The operations of the industry itself can be easily comprehended and weighed up. In agriculture that is not so. One operation of agriculture blends into another and each affects the other. It is really the prosperity of the whole farm which gives the true indication of the cost of production, and not any particular item of production on a farm. I am well aware that since the War there has been a tendency among agriculturists to adopt specialised methods of farming, to regard themselves rather as industrialists.regard themselves, as turning out one particular article, but taking farming by and large it has been proved throughout the ages that the farm which survives the stress of bad times and good times is the farm in which the operations are closely interlocked one with another, the farm where, though it may be profitable to lay more emphasis on one side of production as markets change, each facet of production is yet present and each form of production buttresses the other. That is really the kernel of the difficulty of ascertaining cost of production.
Apart from that difficulty, there are other variable influences like the weather and the cost of imported feeding stuffs, which depend on world causes outside our control, and is it to be said that we are to bring no assistance to this vital branch of the agricultural industry until we have completed to our satisfaction an abstruse, academic and probably unsatis-

factory research into this multitude of unknown and variable factors?

Mr. Alexander: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that last January twelve months the Milk Marketing Board produced a whole series of carefully-worked-out costs of milk production? The Minister has had two years of the operation of the subsidy in which to make arrangements for the costing of the production of fat cattle.

Mr. Morrison: In regard to the cost of production of milk, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember the phrase which I used immediately before I came to my present point. I said that if you took a specialised branch of the industry it was probably easier to arrive at some figure. Whether it would be accurate in the long run, no one would know. In the case of the livestock industry as a whole, fat cattle, store cattle and so on, it is a much more difficult problem to arrive at the cost of production than in the case of milk. The real question facing the House to-night is: Are we to delay assistance to this branch of the industry until we have ascertained, to the satisfaction of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the costs of production of fat cattle? Let no one think that research into the cost of fat cattle has been neglected. It has been pursued persistently by research students, colleges, and learned men who are well qualified to tackle such an economic problem. They have not agreed among themselves; of course there is seldom agreement among wise men. Is this branch of the agricultural industry to be suffered to perish? Surely not. Surely we cannot be blamed if we come, in advance of such scientific findings, to the assistance of an industry of such importance.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough made a point which was very good. He said that we were taking power in the Bill to demand from traders accurate figures as to their costs and processes, and he asked why we were not taking similar powers to extract from farmers figures which would solve this great problem and would provide him and his Friends with what they so greatly desire, the cost of production of fat cattle. It would be easy to take powers under the Bill, and I have no doubt that one would be able to take those powers with the consent of the House, but taking powers and exercising them are different


matters. One is reminded of the saying of Glendower, who said:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
The comment upon that by Hotspur was:
but will they come when you do call for them?
It is one thing to take powers to demand information required from the agricultural industry, but I doubt whether, when one had used those powers and summoned those figures, those spirits would rise from the fields and farms with the same alacrity that the right hon. Gentleman imagines.
There is no doubt, in the mind of any observer of the agricultural industry, of the broad fact upon which the Government's case is based, and there has been real distress in the livestock branch of the agricultural industry. No one can deny it. You can see signs in many quarters, and it was incumbent upon us to lay before the House proposals to give assistance in that way.

Mr. MacLaren: This is very important. We are assured that the Government knew there was distress in the livestock industry, necessitating a subsidy. You surely cannot say that unless you have some data to go upon. I submit that the Department must know, in some rough-and-ready way, the costs of production which made the Government deem it necessary to come to the assistance of the industry. We should like to know what are those costs of production which warrant the Government in telling the House that there is real distress in the livestock industry.

Mr. Morrison: It is not merely a question of figures at all, or of failing to make a profit, but of suffering a loss. It is a question of the fields of this country going back in fertility. All those are ascertainable facts upon which to base the conclusion—

Mr. G. Hardie: Without any figures?

Mr. Morrison: —that the livestock industry is not fulfilling that part in the nation's economy that it should.
As regards the amount of the subsidy, when I introduced the Bill hon. Members on this side of the House said that it was too small a sum. I urged them not to judge the sufficiency of the sum from the trough of the wave of depression which was then on the livestock industry.

I said that these matters must be taken over a term of months and years. Similarly I ask hon. Members opposite to-night not to judge the sufficiency or adequacy of the sum from what they believe to be a rise of the moment. It would be fatal to confidence on the part of the agricultural industry in this House if we were to veer to the wind in our policy with every temporary fall and rise in prices, if we were to chop and change with every weekly market report. You cannot run agriculture on those lines. You must be prepared to give the industry confidence, and the Government would be ill-advised because of the recent rise in prices to change its plans until it is seen how the thing is to work out over a period of time and what is the real state of the industry.
There is little I need say about the Bill. It has been through a long period of digestion. It is a much better Bill than it was. We have had the assistance of hon. Members in putting some points of amendment which have been most helpful. Some hon. Members have expressed doubts as to whether the two-tier system of subsidy is practical. I am convinced that it is, and the experience we have had in the past of the old Cattle Committee in working the old subsidy makes us confident that this new method can be worked with satisfaction to the industry as a whole. There are two new features. One is the premium on quality, which every one recognises to be desirable, and the other is the advantage given to home-grown cattle. That goes to the root of the Government's policy, because it is our intention to encourage the breeding of stock as well as the fattening.
We hope that the regulation of imports will be effected by means of the world Beef Conference by agreement, by international accord among the producers in the various countries concerned, and the provisions which we have inserted in this Bill are really default provisions in case our hopes of the Beef Conference are not fulfilled. On markets, I think that I have made it clear that the main function of the Commission will be to improve markets and not to destroy them, and that it is only the market which at present exists without performing any useful function to producers or consumers, and which is really a burden on the


backs of the producer, which ought to be removed. I think that in the matter of markets we have set on foot a scheme which will provide for important reorganisation of these centres, and without injustice to any one.
The slaughtering part of the Bill does not embody permanent policy. It enables us to set up three experiments on the results of which we may be in a position later to formulate permanent policy. It is a valuable thing to inquire into this matter. It has been a subject of debate long enough and it is time that we got the facts by actual experiment. Less attention has been directed to the service schemes than to other parts of the Bill, but I believe that they offer a very important opportunity, to all those concerned in every branch of the industry, to come together and co-operate for the common good in their various branches of the industry. I think it will be found, when the opportunities of Part VI of the Bill are realised, that a very important and valuable opportunity has been placed in the hands of producers and distributors.
The Bill, as has been pointed out already, has been 18 days in Committee and two days on the Floor of the House, and during that time we have been so immersed in detail that, before we speed the Bill on its way to another place, it would be well to remind ourselves of the bearing which the policy of the Bill has on the agricultural industry in general, and on national policy after that. First of all, there can be no doubt as to the importance of the livestock industry as a branch of the agricultural industry. The proportion of the total value of agricultural output which livestock and its products represent annually is no less than 70 per cent., and the poverty in such a very large part of the industry must react with severe effect upon the whole industry of agriculture. That is due to the fact that the peculiar virtues of this island as a breeding place and fattening ground for livestock have been recognised by the supremacy which our livestock has gained in the world at large. But, quite apart from the value of the output as such, anyone who is acquainted with agriculture in our island must recognise the very important bearing which the carrying of a large livestock population has upon the continued power of our fields to produce food for our own people. One of the features of this island is its steady

rainfall as compared with many parts of the world, and this imposes upon our land a continual lack of humus, which, unless it is replaced, leads ultimately to impoverishment of the soil.
There have been criticisms of the Bill, particularly from the distributive side of the industry. We have tried to meet those criticisms so far as we can, and I think we have succeeded to a very large extent in removing apprehensions and misunderstandings on the part of those engaged in these branches of the industry. But we have, as a last resort, to appeal to the distributors' sense of how vitally they are bound up with the producers in this matter. We have built up in this country a very large urban population, and have reared up a very large structure of commerce and industry. But the complexity and importance of that structure should not so dazzle us that we forget the foundation upon which the whole is reared. All this structure of modem civilisation, in the last resort, rests upon the primary producers. Everything that you grow, in the last resort, comes out of the ground—

Mr. MacLaren: Hear, Hear! Rent and all.

Mr. Morrison: It is true economy for the nation to assist in the preservation of its agriculture. The ground is the whole basis of our national life, and makes us more secure against emergency and adversity. In the confident hope that what we are doing to-night will make a contribution of value to this important end—an end which is well worth struggle and trouble to achieve—I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.

11,0 p.m.

Mr. Price: I wish to make a personal statement as to my views on the Third Reading of the Bill. I speak for myself, though my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) is with me in this matter. I have among my constituents a very large number of persons who are engaged in feeding and breeding cattle. They have suffered terribly in the last few years and they are struggling against very difficult conditions. Their fields have remained unslagged and unmanured and the general condition of the farms is tending to deteriorate. When I see before the House a Bill which will do something to alleviate their difficulties, I can-


not see my way to go into the Lobby against it. My hon. Friend and I, therefore, do not propose to vote against it. We have reason to be satisfied that it represents a substantial advance towards organising the industry. In the Bill we see measures to reorganise the industry in such a way as to eliminate some of the disgraceful waste that is going on between producer and consumer—those middlemen and distributors who are robbing the producer at one end and the consumer at the other, and some step taken—not enough, but a movement in the right direction. We see a tendency towards eliminating redundant markets and setting up central slaughter-houses to get rid of this waste. We see provision for a subsidy to assist those who are trying efficiently to produce the best beef.
We have many objections, which I have voiced in Committee and with my friends have tried to get amended. To some extent we have succeeded, but only to some extent. I much regret that Part III of the Bill sets up market regulations in such a way as I think will be undesirable. What we wish to see is import boards which will have the necessary form

of control in the public interest. There is no sliding scale established for a standard price, which is a very grave defect, and there is no provision for costing. I differ entirely from the Minister when he says it is impossible. I have evidence that it is possible. I bitterly regret that he has allowed the Bill to go through without the necessary provisions in this direction. In spite of that, I cannot see my way to vote against it. Although it has defects, I prefer to trust to public opinion and to criticism which will be levelled from time to time in the House to bring about in time improvement in its operation, and ultimately to amend and extend it. Therefore, believing as I do in the force of public opinion in this country, I hope the Bill will get through. I will not oppose it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will you vote for it?"] Let hon. Members wait. We will decide that in a few minutes. I shall not vote against the Bill. I wish to see it on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 99.

Division No. 184.]
AYES.
[11.6 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Higgs, W. F.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Albery, Sir Irving
Dawson, Sir P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hopkinson, A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Assheton, R.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. Dover)
Duggan, H. J.
Hunter, T.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dunglass, Lord
Joel, D. J. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eastwood, J. F.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Balniel, Lord
Emery, J. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Leekie, J. A.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Liddall, W. S.


Blindell, Sir J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lloyd, G. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Findlay, Sir E.
Loftus, P. C.


Boulton, W. W.
Furness, S. N.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gluckstein, L. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
McKie, J. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Magnay, T.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Guy, J. C. M.
Maitland, A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hannah, I. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Harbord, A.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Critchley, A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Crooke, J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hepworth, J.
Moreing, A. C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Cruddas, Col. B.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)




Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Nall, Sir J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Titchfield, Marquess of


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Rothschild, J. A. de
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Rowlands, G.
Turton, R. H.


Owen, Major G.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Patrick, C. M.
Salmon, Sir I.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Peake, O.
Salt, E. W.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Peat, C. U.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Penny, Sir G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Peroy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Petherick, M.
Somerset, T.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Procter, Major H. A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wragg, H.


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Young, A. S. L. (Partiok)


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)



Ramsbotham, H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsden, Sir E.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert War




and Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, G. D.
Riley, B.


Amnion, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rowson, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Barr, J.
Holdsworth, H.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Batey, J.
dagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silkin, L.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Simpson, F. B.


Brom field, W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J, J.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D, G.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Frankel, D.
MacLaren, A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibbins, J.
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DISEASES OF FISH BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered, read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Leeds, which was presented on the 9th day of April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the City of Durham Gas Company, which was presented on the 10th day of March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Newport (Monmouthshire) Gas Company, which was presented on the 25th day of April and published, he approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to


1934, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Appleby, which was presented on the 20th day of April and published, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Southwark Cathedral Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

Major Sir John Birchall: I beg to second the Motion.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Southwark Cathedral Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

Sir J. Birchall: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this

House do direct that the House of Laity (Co-opted Members) Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

Mr. Denman: I beg to second the Motion.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the House of Laity (Co-opted Members) Measure, 1937, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.